Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Matthew on March 11, 2022, 01:18:25 PM
-
Production of glass -- the glass and tin end up completely parallel, its flatness is formed by LIQUEFYING the material. Liquid is always perfectly flat.
"Globe earthers" bear the burden of proof: show some empirical, scientific data showing that liquids can curve due to "gravity" while at rest. I say that such an assertion is absurd and goes against all demonstrable evidence.
The whole world is waiting. So far: 0.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEOw0UfqKI
-
Uhhhh, "cut to length". So lets's go crazy and say they hack off sheets of glass a whole 10m long. That's about 33 ft. Unlikely, but hey-
So the curvature on that sheet is .008mm based on 8000 mile diameter Earth (8 micrometers or about 3 ten-thousandths of an inch).
So what is one supposed to prove?
It's more than a little ironic that clown's name is "PRAT". Sure fits!
-
Uhhhh, "cut to length". So lets's go crazy and say they hack off sheets of glass a whole 10m long. That's about 33 ft. Unlikely, but hey-
So the curvature on that sheet is .008mm based on 8000 mile diameter Earth (8 micrometers or about 3 ten-thousandths of an inch).
So what is one supposed to prove?
Those believing and promoting Globe Earth virtually ALWAYS resort to ridicule and ad-hominems, rather than addressing the facts. WHY?
My point (and his point): such "curvature" of 0.008 mm in a sheet of glass (which was formed merely by liquifying it, making it perfectly flat) has never been observed, measured, or demonstrated. That is a problem for the Globe Earth model.
Are you saying such a miniscule "curvature" is beyond our means to measure? I don't believe so. And yet it has never been measured.
Why not?
-
Those believing and promoting Globe Earth virtually ALWAYS resort to ridicule and ad-hominems, rather than addressing the facts. WHY?
My point (and his point): such "curvature" of 0.008 mm in a sheet of glass (which was formed merely by liquifying it, making it perfectly flat) has never been observed, measured, or demonstrated. That is a problem for the Globe Earth model.
Are you saying such a miniscule "curvature" is beyond our means to measure? I don't believe so. And yet it has never been measured.
Why not?
No, he has a point. I don't think anyone has bothered to melt that amount of glass and measure it so precisely that they find out it has .008mm in curvature.
They haven't bothered because it's a waste of time.
-
I mean, you can go ahead and do it but its time consuming, expensive and there are so many other variables which can affect the shape of it during the process.
-
Methods of improving the surface flatness of thin glass sheets and silicon wafers
Author(s)
Akilian, Mireille
(https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46484/399677838-MIT.pdf.jpg?sequence=5&isAllowed=y)
Full printable version (73.47Mb)
Other Contributors
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.
Advisor
Mark L. Schattenburg.
Terms of use
M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582 (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582)
Metadata
Show full item record (https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/46484?show=full)
Abstract
The manufacturing of high quality sheet glass has allowed for many technologies to advance to astonishing frontiers. With dimensions reaching ~ 3 x 3 m², sheet glass is pushing the envelope for producing massive size flat panel displays that can be hung on walls like paintings. Many other applications utilize sheet glass, such as the hard disk drive industry for making platters, the x-ray telescope industry for making high precision optics, and the semiconductor industry for making masks and substrates. The exceptional optical qualities of sheet glass give them a leading advantage in many technologies; however, one main impediment that remains with manufacturing larger sheets is their surface waviness. The sheets have large warps, on the order of hundreds of microns, that present many challenges in all the industries utilizing such sheets, especially in the liquid crystal display and precision optics industries. The thinner the sheets, the larger their waviness, thus placing a limit on the minimum thickness that can be used in such applications before surface distortions become unacceptable. A novel method of shaping sheet glass is presented. This method reduces the surface waviness of a glass sheet and changes its shape while it is in its hot state and without contacting its surface. A sheet of glass is inserted between two parallel porous mandrels such that it is at a predefined distance from the two. A thin layer of pressurized gas flows through each mandrel and out against the glass surfaces. The resulting viscous flow against the heated soft glass sheet changes its surface topography. By using flat mandrels and controlled pressurized gas at temperatures close to 600°C, the outcome is a flat sheet of glass with its original immaculate optical qualities. The flow in porous mandrels and the resulting pressure distribution along the surfaces of a glass sheet inserted between two porous mandrels is modeled. The design and manufacturing of an apparatus used to reduce the surface waviness of glass sheets at elevated temperatures is described.
(cont.) The apparatus designed addresses individual sheets; however, guidelines on how to incorporate this method of shaping glass in a continuous glass sheet manufacturing facility are provided. A method of rigidly assembling stacks of glass and silicon sheets with precision for x-ray telescope mirrors and gratings is also presented.
Description
Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, 2008.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 291-298).
Date issued
2008
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/46484 (http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/46484)
Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering
Publisher
-
Those believing and promoting Globe Earth virtually ALWAYS resort to ridicule and ad-hominems, rather than addressing the facts. WHY?
Ridicule and ad-hominems rather than addressing the facts? Virtually always? :confused:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ak7Qy_dHmk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ak7Qy_dHmk)
-
Sungenis has no credibility when it comes to defending anything scientific because his geocentric notions of a globe earth are almost entirely based on heliocentric Big Bang science. Sungenis says in his book Flat Earth, Flat Wrong:
“So what kind of material substance could the firmament of the heavens be? First, let’s look at some suggestions from modern science. Interestingly enough, when modern scientists have to describe the Big Bang, they seem to be borrowing from the Bible’s description about the “stretching of the firmament,” but perhaps without even knowing it. Stephen Hawking, no stranger to innovative ideas, describes something unusual in his 2010 book, The Grand Design (http://i.viglink.com/?key=9aafeaa0dc973144cc8995b68291f36e&insertId=95fce2932336848a&type=H&exp=60%3ACI1C55A%3A19&libId=jjuoq2t60100g3d9000DA15l4v9sq&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ft103-critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth&v=1&iid=95fce2932336848a&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fdp%2FB07B7B5DWJ&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ff6-general-flat-earth-discussion&title=Critique of Robert Sungenis' article against flat). Pay special attention to Hawking’s last sentence: …during this cosmic inflation, the universe expanded by a factor of 1 ൈ 1030 in 1 ൈ 10‒35 seconds. It was as if a coin 1 centimeter in diameter suddenly blew up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way. That may seem to violate relativity, which dictates that nothing can move faster than light, but that speed limit does not apply to the expansion of space itself…physicists aren’t sure how inflation happened….But if you go far enough back in time, the universe was as small as the Planck size, a billion‐trillion‐trillionth of a centimeter.
Although we by no means subscribe to the Big Bang theory, Hawking does tell us what modern science believes is the fundamental particle. He says it is a particle of “the Planck size.” Modern physics has come to realise that there must be a shortest length for matter—the state in which matter becomes indivisible. It is the entity of indivisibility the Greeks called the “atom.””
Sungenis doesn't subscribe to the Big Bang theory? Yet quotes Steven Hawking? Really? The voice used for Hawking (poor guy who was probably a maintained vegetable) was a raging atheist. Here are a couple of quotes from Hawking:
“I think computer viruses should count as life … I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We’ve created life in our own image.”
― Stephen Hawking
“I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design (http://i.viglink.com/?key=9aafeaa0dc973144cc8995b68291f36e&insertId=95fce2932336848a&type=H&exp=60%3ACI1C55A%3A19&libId=jjuoq2t60100g3d9000DA15l4v9sq&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ft103-critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth&v=1&iid=95fce2932336848a&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fdp%2FB07B7B5DWJ&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ff6-general-flat-earth-discussion&title=Critique of Robert Sungenis' article against flat) of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.” ― Stephen Hawking
Not important you say? Well, let's look further. What is the planck theory?
“A Planck particle, named after physicist Max Planck (http://i.viglink.com/?key=9aafeaa0dc973144cc8995b68291f36e&insertId=cd0ff316243048e8&type=H&exp=60%3ACI1C55A%3A19&libId=jjuoq2t60100g3d9000DA15l4v9sq&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ft103-critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth&v=1&iid=cd0ff316243048e8&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fdp%2FB07CG4F89W&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ff6-general-flat-earth-discussion&title=Critique of Robert Sungenis' article against flat), is a hypothetical particle defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius.[1] Its mass is thus approximately the Planck mass, and its Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are about the Planck length.[2] Planck particles are sometimes used as an exercise to define the Planck mass and Planck length.[3]They play a role in some models of the evolution of the universe during the Planck epoch.”
A quick search shows that this planck epoch is the very beginning of the Big Bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology)
Sungenis claims he isn't a Big Banger, so why is he using Big Bangers and their theories to support his premise?
Here's another one of Sungenis' sources: George Musser (http://i.viglink.com/?key=9aafeaa0dc973144cc8995b68291f36e&insertId=46aff0f19d744d25&type=H&exp=60%3ACI1C55A%3A19&libId=jjuoq2t60100g3d9000DA15l4v9sq&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ft103-critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth&v=1&iid=46aff0f19d744d25&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fdp%2FB01F7XD4MK&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ff6-general-flat-earth-discussion&title=Critique of Robert Sungenis' article against flat), who wrote the book: In Spooky Action at a Distance. Musser sets out to answer the space time planck continuum vacuum question, offering a provocative exploration of nonlocality and a celebration of the scientists who are trying to explain it. Musser guides the reader on a journey into the lives of experimental physicists observing particles acting in tandem, astronomers finding galaxies that look statistically identical, and cosmologists hoping to unravel the paradoxes surrounding the Big Bang.
If anyone has read Sungenis' book they'd find out pretty quickly that the man relies on pagan heliocentric scientists, models and theories to support his fantasy hybrid model. Rob Skiba said of him that he was a rare person who didn't resort to name calling etc. but there's another way to insult your opponent and that is when you employ endless streams of gibberish to impress everyone into thinking you know what you're talking about.
-
Sungenis has no credibility when it comes to defending anything scientific
Wow! Do you actually believe that?
-
Wow! Do you actually believe that?
Absolutely. Promoting and defending his books and movies has become more important to him than the truth.
-
Ridicule and ad-hominems rather than addressing the facts? Virtually always? :confused:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ak7Qy_dHmk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ak7Qy_dHmk)
Matthew's right about the VIRTUALLY always, but Hovind and Sungenis (actually, more the latter than the former) actually seem to show much more intellectual honestly in that particular video than I have ever seen before from the anti-FE folks. Unlike the typical glober, Sungenis admits that there are some very intelligent men with many strong arguments in favor of their position. Sungenis does not ridicule them and even concedes a fair number of their points, rejecting the typically glober attack on several of them. He said that he thought it would be easy to refute in about 30 pages, but ended up taking him over 700 pages. Sungenis is someone I feel like I could sit down and have a rational conversation with about the subject that would not be contentious or vitriolic, i.e. a genuine mutual search for the truth.
-
Rob Skiba said of him that he was a rare person who didn't resort to name calling etc. but there's another way to insult your opponent and that is when you employ endless streams of gibberish to impress everyone into thinking you know what you're talking about.
Well, I'll agree with Skiba on this one. I found Sungenis' treatment of the subject to be respectful of the Flat Earthers. He prescinded from ridicule and name-calling and gave them (i.e. us) a lot of credit, but ended up disagreeing in the end. This I can live with and work with. What isn't helpful to the search for truth are the gratuitous insults and name-calling, such as those in which Marion and some others indulged. That serves no purposes whatsoever. It just pisses off your opponents and tempts them to respond in kind. Nothing good ever happens as a result.
Sungenis is someone I think I'd enjoy sitting down with and discussing this subject over some good beer.
-
Sungenis is someone I think I'd enjoy sitting down with and discussing this subject over some good beer.
I believe the feeling would be mutual. (And, as an aside we all know, of course, that the FE folks never engage in ad-hominems and ridicule.)
-
I believe the feeling would be mutual. (And, as an aside we all know, of course, that the FE folks never engage in ad-hominems and ridicule.)
Well, if the FEs do engage in such tactics, it's nearly always retaliatory, a response in kind. I think that the vast majority of FE know that it would be some difficult programming for people to break in order to embrace or even be open to FE theory.
I don't know of any FE whose first reaction to a glober would be, "I can't believe that someone could be so idiotic as to believe that the earth is a globe." That reaction is entirely one-sided as FE has been deliberately consigned to the realm of tin-foil hats.
But it also says something about FE that is gets such violent reactions. If someone put up a website claiming that the earth was shaped like a donut, I think people would walk past it and move along after quickly and casually performing that circular motion of the finger around the ear, and would never think of it again. But there are people who spend inordinate amounts of time trying to debunk flat earth. That means that 1) there's something to it and 2) it threatens them psychologically somehow (due to the programming they've received).
-
Well, I'll agree with Skiba on this one. I found Sungenis' treatment of the subject to be respectful of the Flat Earthers. He prescinded from ridicule and name-calling and gave them (i.e. us) a lot of credit, but ended up disagreeing in the end. This I can live with and work with. What isn't helpful to the search for truth are the gratuitous insults and name-calling, such as those in which Marion and some others indulged. That serves no purposes whatsoever. It just pisses off your opponents and tempts them to respond in kind. Nothing good ever happens as a result.
Sungenis is someone I think I'd enjoy sitting down with and discussing this subject over some good beer.
While we didn't sit down or have a beer, I had an email discussion with Sungenis a few years ago and at the time, he was closed to FE. I had another discussion with Rick Delano, his movie partner, on FB, and he also disregarded every FE argument. With all their books and movies on the line, I doubt either can be reached. Of course, you never know. If you wrote to Sungenis, he'd probably answer.
-
"...physicists aren’t sure how inflation happened..."
Sounds just like the Banksters and Politicians and all the other stooges of the Money Master Mafia.
-
Absolutely. Promoting and defending his books and movies has become more important to him than the truth.
You apparently have very strong disagreements with Robert Sungenis. Nevertheless, I would hope that you would retract what appears to be a very rash and defamatory statement. Are you a mind reader?!
-
You apparently have very strong disagreements with Robert Sungenis. Nevertheless, I would hope that you would retract what appears to be a very rash and defamatory statement. Are you a mind reader?!
I don't need to read his mind. I had an extensive discussion with him and read a good portion of his book. I know what he thinks about geocentrism.
-
Sounds just like the Banksters and Politicians and all the other stooges of the Money Master Mafia.
:laugh1:
-
I don't need to read his mind. I had an extensive discussion with him and read a good portion of his book. I know what he thinks about geocentrism.
Then, perhaps you will be so kind as to share what you say is your knowledge with us and tell us what you say Robert Sungenis thinks about geocentrism. While you're at it perhaps you could show what evidence you supposedly have for earlier asserting that for Sungenis, "Promoting and defending his books and movies has become more important to him than the truth." That latter statement appears absurd on its face since Sungenis believes that in promoting and defending his books and movies he is promoting and defending the truth.
At the very least tell me some things that Sungenis has asserted in either his books or his movies that you believe are not true and that you believe Sungenis nevertheless asserted while either knowing they were untrue or being indifferent as to whether they were true or not.
-
Then, perhaps you will be so kind as to share what you say is your knowledge with us and tell us what you say Robert Sungenis thinks about geocentrism. While you're at it perhaps you could show what evidence you supposedly have for earlier asserting that for Sungenis, "Promoting and defending his books and movies has become more important to him than the truth." That latter statement appears absurd on its face since Sungenis believes that in promoting and defending his books and movies he is promoting and defending the truth.
At the very least tell me some things that Sungenis has asserted in either his books or his movies that you believe are not true and that you believe Sungenis nevertheless asserted while either knowing they were untrue or being indifferent as to whether they were true or not.
I already posted a tiny amount of Sungenis' pagan Pythagorean sources in this thread. Please read it. It should at least sound an alarm. Still, the scope of what you ask goes way beyond any possible response in this space. You'd really have to go down the rabbit hole of the bigger argument. The pages dedicated to flat earth on CI are myriad and include many aspects pro and con. Read them.
Although it doesn't say a whole lot about the shape of the earth, this book
is available to read online and a valuable testament to the development of understanding of churchmen (both then and now) about the evil of Pythagorean/Copernican doctrine and that it has been officially and thoroughly condemned by the Church.
https://b-ok.cc/book/3555484/6b321a (https://b-ok.cc/book/3555484/6b321a)
Knowing that the modern Pythagoreans (NASA et.al.) promote the idea that earth is a globe and use every means necessary to block, deride, undermine and destroy all evidence to the contrary is an important piece of the puzzle. We need Sungenis and I wish we had him to defend the truth in this matter. But we need him to be honest enough to turn away from those pagan sources and theories, and come back to reality found in scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the saints and true science. In the meantime, he's leading people astray.
-
BTW, the book I linked above is called, "
"Burned Alive : Bruno, Galileo and the Inquisition" by Alberto A. Martinez (https://b-ok.cc/g/Alberto A. Martinez)
You can read it for free online. https://b-ok.cc/book/3555484/6b321a (https://b-ok.cc/book/3555484/6b321a)
-
he's leading people astray.
You state in reference to Robert Sungenis (who is a long time personal friend of mine and from whose works I have benefited to a great degree).
What (Catholic doctrinal truth?) exactly is he leading people astray from and how exactly is he doing this? This charge you publicly make against a man who has spent most of his adult life as a dedicated professional apologist of the Catholic Faith is quite serious if you are claiming that he is leading Catholics astray from Catholic doctrinal truths. (It is also a charge you make against him on a forum in which he does not participate so as to defend himself against such charges.) If this is the case please site your exact source(s) such as books or articles he has had published with the full identification of such work(s) along with the page number and the verbatim quote(s) from same that would shore up your case as well as any videos you can link with the exact time frame(s) in same where he says exactly such and such that you believe are leading people astray from the Catholic Faith if that is indeed the claim that you are making.
-
While I disagree with Dr. Sungenis on FE, I still have a great deal of respect for him, and I think he's being genuine and sincere, and I truly appreciate the rational approach he took in the video with Hovind. He prescinded from mockery and ridicule, and he admitted that the FE position has a tremendous amount of substance to it. He even made the same refutation of some of Hovind's objections to FE that FEs themselves would make, e.g. the whole thing about "why can't I see Europe from New York?" stuff that gets hurled out there, where he responds that you shouldn't be able to due to the atmosphere and haze and humidity. That response when coming from FEs is written off with a joke, but Sungenis honestly considered and accepted that FE argument, so that speaks well of him.
If people on both side of the debate could adopt a respectful and open attitude, this could turn into a mutual search for truth rather than devolve into the usual vitriol and polemics. If someone truly believes FEs are in error, does he really believe that mocking them and hurling insults is going to be persuasive?
-
While I disagree with Dr. Sungenis on FE, I still have a great deal of respect for him, and I think he's being genuine and sincere, and I truly appreciate the rational approach he took in the video with Hovind. He prescinded from mockery and ridicule, and he admitted that the FE position has a tremendous amount of substance to it. He even made the same refutation of some of Hovind's objections to FE that FEs themselves would make, e.g. the whole thing about "why can't I see Europe from New York?" stuff that gets hurled out there, where he responds that you shouldn't be able to due to the atmosphere and haze and humidity. That response when coming from FEs is written off with a joke, but Sungenis honestly considered and accepted that FE argument, so that speaks well of him.
If people on both side of the debate could adopt a respectful and open attitude, this could turn into a mutual search for truth rather than devolve into the usual vitriol and polemics. If someone truly believes FEs are in error, does he really believe that mocking them and hurling insults is going to be persuasive?
Thanks for the comment Lad. It's the well balanced kind I've come to expect from you.
-
You state in reference to Robert Sungenis (who is a long time personal friend of mine and from whose works I have benefited to a great degree).
What (Catholic doctrinal truth?) exactly is he leading people astray from and how exactly is he doing this? This charge you publicly make against a man who has spent most of his adult life as a dedicated professional apologist of the Catholic Faith is quite serious if you are claiming that he is leading Catholics astray from Catholic doctrinal truths. (It is also a charge you make against him on a forum in which he does not participate so as to defend himself against such charges.) If this is the case please site your exact source(s) such as books or articles he has had published with the full identification of such work(s) along with the page number and the verbatim quote(s) from same that would shore up your case as well as any videos you can link with the exact time frame(s) in same where he says exactly such and such that you believe are leading people astray from the Catholic Faith if that is indeed the claim that you are making.
No one said Sungenis is leading people away from doctrinal truth per se. He is leading them against the Fathers' common interpretation of scripture on the shape of the earth and thereby casting doubt on the veracity of scripture, as well as maintaining pathways to heresy. Globe earth comes from the false Pythagorean Doctrine (PD) even if it differs from Sungenis' model by way of earth's movement. If you read the book from the link I provided, you'd see the PD was condemned in it's entirety. And why it was condemned. It took decades of tolerance and discussion to open the eyes of the popes and churchmen back then because the evilness in PD can be subtle, but it directly promotes the heretical plurality of worlds (not possible on a flat earth). It also supports transmigration of souls (reincarnation) as well as antipodes. Sungenis insists earth is spherical, which is part and parcel of the PD promoted by the enemies of the Church even today (governments, NASA, globalists). Sungenis' model is at not only at odds with scripture and reason, but with many Fathers of the Church (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Methodius, Ephrem Syrus, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Procopius of Gaza, all offered an intriguing exegesis of the Tabernacle.) According to these great Fathers, earth is a macrocosm, the original model for the great Tabernacle, the Temple, and the Ark of the Covenant, none of which are spherical. Scripture describes earth as having four corners, supported by pillars and covered with a firmament/dome, making it look like a tent. Great men/saints/Fathers source their exegeses from Psalms, Isaiah and Job, and of course, Genesis. Sungenis simply dismisses, ignores or denies this because he is determined to base his information on modern scientists and theories with which he agrees.
-
No one said Sungenis is leading people away from doctrinal truth per se. He is leading them against the Fathers' common interpretation of scripture on the shape of the earth and thereby casting doubt on the veracity of scripture, as well as maintaining pathways to heresy. Globe earth comes from the false Pythagorean Doctrine (PD) even if it differs from Sungenis' model by way of earth's movement. If you read the book from the link I provided, you'd see the PD was condemned in it's entirety. And why it was condemned. It took decades of tolerance and discussion to open the eyes of the popes and churchmen back then because the evilness in PD can be subtle, but it directly promotes the heretical plurality of worlds (not possible on a flat earth). It also supports transmigration of souls (reincarnation) as well as antipodes. Sungenis insists earth is spherical, which is part and parcel of the PD promoted by the enemies of the Church even today (governments, NASA, globalists). Sungenis' model is at not only at odds with scripture and reason, but with many Fathers of the Church (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Methodius, Ephrem Syrus, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Procopius of Gaza, all offered an intriguing exegesis of the Tabernacle.) According to these great Fathers, earth is a macrocosm, the original model for the great Tabernacle, the Temple, and the Ark of the Covenant, none of which are spherical. Scripture describes earth as having four corners, supported by pillars and covered with a firmament/dome, making it look like a tent. Great men/saints/Fathers source their exegeses from Psalms, Isaiah and Job, and of course, Genesis. Sungenis simply dismisses, ignores or denies this because he is determined to base his information on modern scientists and theories with which he agrees.
Thank you for putting this assessment down. Since you have taken the time put it down, I would invite you to state it exactly as you have here and send it to Sungenis for his reply unless perhaps you would rather I do it myself.
-
Thank you for putting this assessment down. Since you have taken the time put it down, I would invite you to state it exactly as you have here and send it to Sungenis for his reply unless perhaps you would rather I do it myself.
No problem. You can do it. I barely find time to post here on CI except when I'm not working as much. Still, feel free to use the assessment I wrote and have him come debate it here on CI if he wants. There are plenty of qualified FE's here on CI more capable than I. Or, let him rebut it, and post the rebuttal here if he isn't inclined to join CI. I have nothing personal against Sungenis, he's put out plenty of great quality Catholic videos and been associated with excellent Catholic groups through which he's spoken. Other than this particular subject, I find he's a skillful apologist for the Catholic Faith and worth fighting for. If he joins, I'll do what I can to be involved in the debate.
-
No one said Sungenis is leading people away from doctrinal truth per se. He is leading them against the Fathers' common interpretation of scripture on the shape of the earth and thereby casting doubt on the veracity of scripture, as well as maintaining pathways to heresy. Globe earth comes from the false Pythagorean Doctrine (PD) even if it differs from Sungenis' model by way of earth's movement. If you read the book from the link I provided, you'd see the PD was condemned in it's entirety. And why it was condemned. It took decades of tolerance and discussion to open the eyes of the popes and churchmen back then because the evilness in PD can be subtle, but it directly promotes the heretical plurality of worlds (not possible on a flat earth). It also supports transmigration of souls (reincarnation) as well as antipodes. Sungenis insists earth is spherical, which is part and parcel of the PD promoted by the enemies of the Church even today (governments, NASA, globalists). Sungenis' model is at not only at odds with scripture and reason, but with many Fathers of the Church (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Methodius, Ephrem Syrus, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Procopius of Gaza, all offered an intriguing exegesis of the Tabernacle.) According to these great Fathers, earth is a macrocosm, the original model for the great Tabernacle, the Temple, and the Ark of the Covenant, none of which are spherical. Scripture describes earth as having four corners, supported by pillars and covered with a firmament/dome, making it look like a tent. Great men/saints/Fathers source their exegeses from Psalms, Isaiah and Job, and of course, Genesis. Sungenis simply dismisses, ignores or denies this because he is determined to base his information on modern scientists and theories with which he agrees.
This is the bit that I do not like about a flat-Earth belief, trying to make it look like some sort of Catholic teaching, thereby making belief in a global Earth look like some sort of sin.
For example Tradman, you write:
'He [Sungenis] is leading them against the Fathers' common interpretation of scripture on the shape of the earth and thereby casting doubt on the veracity of scripture, as well as maintaining pathways to heresy.'
To accuse someone like this, using a false history and false teaching of the Church to back up your accusation of Sungenis leading others towards heresy is little less than slanderous.
Earlier you posted a link to A. A. Martinez's book Burned Alive. In it we find a history of Pythagoreanism and the battles the Fathers and popes of the Church fought against its heresies and false philosophies over the centuries and how it impacted on the Bruno and Galileo cases. This has to be one of the most important books on the Pythagorean heresies ever written. I corresponded with him and discovered he is a heliocentrist. Indeed he might not even be a Catholic. Nevertheless, he gives a true history of all the condemnations by the Church Fathers and popes against these Pythagorean heresies and false philosophies over the first 3 centuries of the Catholic church. The book details every aspect of Bruno’s beliefs, the 54 heresies and philosophies he was accused of during his long trial by the Inquisition. In most cases, Martinez tells us, Bruno said he was wrong with some and was able to argue his way out of others, one way or another, but refused to retract 13 of them on the subject of substance; that the Earth has a soul, and that there are many occupied worlds among others. For these heresies then Giordano Bruno, as a cleric, was burned alive; execution ‘inflicted for the gravest offenses.’
Now we all know Pythagoras held to a global-Earth. So did Bruno. Yet, for 1600 years no pope ever condemned a global Earth, nor was the flat-Earth ever mentioned as revealed in Scripture at his trial. It is well know that only if ALL of the Fathers hold to a certain revelation of the Bible does it become an act of Catholic faith. Galileo’s heliocentrism was defined and declared as formal heresy. A heresy becomes formal when an old heresy is isolated and defined as one by the pope.
Now by all means defend your own belief but do not try to make it Catholic. As you probably know, 99.9% of people are of the opinion that a flat-Earth is nonsense, while some on CIF cannot believe there are flat-earth on a Catholic debating forum. If you even say on a post debating the subject that you do not believe in it, the thumb-downers show the subject is really not up for debate, and damn anyone who tries to falsify it. I am still waiting for a flat-earther to explain how the science of geodesy is of no consequence to them. Geodesy is Earth measurement science. Domenico Cassini was God’s astronomer, surveyor and he measured the Earth as egg shaped in order to falsify Newton’s bulging, spinning heliocentric Earth. Finally a bit of advice from St Augustine
‘It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Ch. 19).
-
This is the bit that I do not like about a flat-Earth belief, trying to make it look like some sort of Catholic teaching, thereby making belief in a global Earth look like some sort of sin.
For example Tradman, you write:
'He [Sungenis] is leading them against the Fathers' common interpretation of scripture on the shape of the earth and thereby casting doubt on the veracity of scripture, as well as maintaining pathways to heresy.'
To accuse someone like this, using a false history and false teaching of the Church to back up your accusation of Sungenis leading others towards heresy is little less than slanderous.
Earlier you posted a link to A. A. Martinez's book Burned Alive. In it we find a history of Pythagoreanism and the battles the Fathers and popes of the Church fought against its heresies and false philosophies over the centuries and how it impacted on the Bruno and Galileo cases. This has to be one of the most important books on the Pythagorean heresies ever written. I corresponded with him and discovered he is a heliocentrist. Indeed he might not even be a Catholic. Nevertheless, he gives a true history of all the condemnations by the Church Fathers and popes against these Pythagorean heresies and false philosophies over the first 3 centuries of the Catholic church. The book details every aspect of Bruno’s beliefs, the 54 heresies and philosophies he was accused of during his long trial by the Inquisition. In most cases, Martinez tells us, Bruno said he was wrong with some and was able to argue his way out of others, one way or another, but refused to retract 13 of them on the subject of substance; that the Earth has a soul, and that there are many occupied worlds among others. For these heresies then Giordano Bruno, as a cleric, was burned alive; execution ‘inflicted for the gravest offenses.’
Now we all know Pythagoras held to a global-Earth. So did Bruno. Yet, for 1600 years no pope ever condemned a global Earth, nor was the flat-Earth ever mentioned as revealed in Scripture at his trial. It is well know that only if ALL of the Fathers hold to a certain revelation of the Bible does it become an act of Catholic faith. Galileo’s heliocentrism was defined and declared as formal heresy. A heresy becomes formal when an old heresy is isolated and defined as one by the pope.
Now by all means defend your own belief but do not try to make it Catholic. As you probably know, 99.9% of people are of the opinion that a flat-Earth is nonsense, while some on CIF cannot believe there are flat-earth on a Catholic debating forum. If you even say on a post debating the subject that you do not believe in it, the thumb-downers show the subject is really not up for debate, and damn anyone who tries to falsify it. I am still waiting for a flat-earther to explain how the science of geodesy is of no consequence to them. Geodesy is Earth measurement science. Domenico Cassini was God’s astronomer, surveyor and he measured the Earth as egg shaped in order to falsify Newton’s bulging, spinning heliocentric Earth. Finally a bit of advice from St Augustine
‘It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Ch. 19).
Thanks much cassini for this very clear and cogent post. What you said here certainly needed to be said.
-
No problem. You can do it. I barely find time to post here on CI except when I'm not working as much. Still, feel free to use the assessment I wrote and have him come debate it here on CI if he wants. There are plenty of qualified FE's here on CI more capable than I. Or, let him rebut it, and post the rebuttal here if he isn't inclined to join CI.
Indeed, I will forward your assessment to Dr. Sungenis (who by the way, had his chance for a PhD from one prestigious American institution of higher learning denied him one after the other simply because they were unwilling to allow him to get it via a thesis in support of geocentrism which I imagine is akin to trying to earn a PhD via a thesis in support of a young Earth as opposed to one via support of Big Bang and macro evolution).
Sungenis may appear relaxed when you see him on a video or what have you, but he keeps an extremely active schedule. I don't imagine he has time to be drawn into a debate on this forum on the question of a flat or global Earth. He dedicated 9 months of his life researching and writing up a book of well over 700 pages on the subject. Nevertheless, as I said, I will send your assessment to him and see if he cares to provide a response. Know, however, that if you want to do Sungenis real comprehensive justice on the FE/Global question you really need to access his book and not in the manner of a "cherry picker."
In the meantime, I will leave you with a quote from Sungenis found on the Internet: "Yes, strict Copernicanism will never be held again, but the 1616 and 1633 did not condemn 'strict Copernicanism' but any cosmology that made the Earth revolve around the sun, whether it was Pythagoras, Galileo, Foscarini, Copernicus or Kepler. Mr. Palm keeps avoiding this fact because it would destroy his argument."
-
This is the bit that I do not like about a flat-Earth belief, trying to make it look like some sort of Catholic teaching, thereby making belief in a global Earth look like some sort of sin.
For example Tradman, you write:
'He [Sungenis] is leading them against the Fathers' common interpretation of scripture on the shape of the earth and thereby casting doubt on the veracity of scripture, as well as maintaining pathways to heresy.'
To accuse someone like this, using a false history and false teaching of the Church to back up your accusation of Sungenis leading others towards heresy is little less than slanderous.
Earlier you posted a link to A. A. Martinez's book Burned Alive. In it we find a history of Pythagoreanism and the battles the Fathers and popes of the Church fought against its heresies and false philosophies over the centuries and how it impacted on the Bruno and Galileo cases. This has to be one of the most important books on the Pythagorean heresies ever written. I corresponded with him and discovered he is a heliocentrist. Indeed he might not even be a Catholic. Nevertheless, he gives a true history of all the condemnations by the Church Fathers and popes against these Pythagorean heresies and false philosophies over the first 3 centuries of the Catholic church. The book details every aspect of Bruno’s beliefs, the 54 heresies and philosophies he was accused of during his long trial by the Inquisition. In most cases, Martinez tells us, Bruno said he was wrong with some and was able to argue his way out of others, one way or another, but refused to retract 13 of them on the subject of substance; that the Earth has a soul, and that there are many occupied worlds among others. For these heresies then Giordano Bruno, as a cleric, was burned alive; execution ‘inflicted for the gravest offenses.’
Now we all know Pythagoras held to a global-Earth. So did Bruno. Yet, for 1600 years no pope ever condemned a global Earth, nor was the flat-Earth ever mentioned as revealed in Scripture at his trial. It is well know that only if ALL of the Fathers hold to a certain revelation of the Bible does it become an act of Catholic faith. Galileo’s heliocentrism was defined and declared as formal heresy. A heresy becomes formal when an old heresy is isolated and defined as one by the pope.
Now by all means defend your own belief but do not try to make it Catholic. As you probably know, 99.9% of people are of the opinion that a flat-Earth is nonsense, while some on CIF cannot believe there are flat-earth on a Catholic debating forum. If you even say on a post debating the subject that you do not believe in it, the thumb-downers show the subject is really not up for debate, and damn anyone who tries to falsify it. I am still waiting for a flat-earther to explain how the science of geodesy is of no consequence to them. Geodesy is Earth measurement science. Domenico Cassini was God’s astronomer, surveyor and he measured the Earth as egg shaped in order to falsify Newton’s bulging, spinning heliocentric Earth. Finally a bit of advice from St Augustine
‘It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Ch. 19).
You can repeat anything you feel needs to be addressed but for now I'm responding to this paragraph. You said,
"Now we all know Pythagoras held to a global-Earth. So did Bruno. Yet, for 1600 years no pope ever condemned a global Earth, nor was the flat-Earth ever mentioned as revealed in Scripture at his trial. It is well know that only if ALL of the Fathers hold to a certain revelation of the Bible does it become an act of Catholic faith. Galileo’s heliocentrism was defined and declared as formal heresy. A heresy becomes formal when an old heresy is isolated and defined as one by the pope."
First of all, they didn't address the globe because it was obvious to early Christians and even a majority of the early pagan civilizations that earth was flat. We have far too much information, writings, early maps and ancient art showing flat earth preceded all globes, in popularly held beliefs, even if the globe theory simmered in the background for centuries. When the globe lie came bound up with other heresies and finally exploded in the early 1600's, the more obviously-evil aspects of the Pythagorean Doctrine were the focus, like moving earth and stationary sun. Even then, it took the hierarchy years to flesh out what they did. By the time they realized what the PD was doing to the world, they had enough information to condemn the theory and they did it. Even if the globe wasn't specifically condemned, it was certainly included in the condemnation of the PD. They certainly didn't exclude the globe or specify that it wasn't included in the condemnation.
In Martinez' book Copernicus takes a swipe at Lanctantius for being a flat earther:
pg 23
In this preface, Copernicus also took the opportunity to criticize those who stupidly argued about mathematical topics without understanding them. In this connection, he briefly criticized Lactantius, an ancient Christian authority, noting that although he was a celebrated writer, he was not a mathematician. Copernicus complained that Lactantius spoke in a childish way about the shape of the Earth, in saying that it is ‘ridiculous’ that its shape is spherical.
Lactantius believed earth is flat and said it out loud. You don't hear Bellarmine complaining about any of these famous saintly Catholics holding false notions about the shape of the earth. If this most intelligent of men thought earth was a globe, he would spare that globe from the condemnation and correct his forefathers for their error.
Martinez book, Pg 148
"Bellarmine warned Foscarini that the Council of Trent had prohibited any interpretation of scriptures deviating from the Holy Fathers. He added that recent commentaries on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Joshua all agreed on the literal interpretation about the Sun’s motion, while ‘the Earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless as the centre of the world.’ Bellarmine concluded that although the Earth’s motion is not a subject of faith, it is a matter of faith on those speakers, the apostles, prophets and Catholic commentators, who wrote about it."
So, Bellarmine believed earth 'Sits motionless at the center of the world'. This is a clear indicator he believed earth was flat, that is with heaven above, hell below and flat earth in the middle, or he would have said, 'sits motionless in the center of the universe'. But he didn't. Come to think of it, Bellarmine could not possibly have thought earth was a globe because the globe belonged to the PD which he soundly condemned wholesale. Bellarmine must have shared the belief of his forefathers since the preceding paragraph tells us they helped him draw his conclusions.
There are also many other Catholic hierarchy, and saints, who knew earth is flat that are not mentioned in this thread. So my question to you is: who are the globe earth fathers? What are, or where are, their writings on the globe earth? What passages in scripture to the Fathers source in order to prove earth is a globe?
As far as flat earth being doctrine, you are correct, it has not been defined. But to suggest we haven't a clue about it, or that scripture says nothing about it, or that the Fathers didn't write extensively about the form of the earth, would be false. And of the ones who wrote about it, not just mentioned the form of the earth in passing, but the Fathers who actually wrote about the shape of the earth, 100% were flat earthers. Yes, 100%. Interestingly, there are 0% Fathers who explained how earth is a globe, let alone having sourced their conclusions from scripture.
-
Indeed, I will forward your assessment to Dr. Sungenis (who by the way, had his chance for a PhD from one prestigious American institution of higher learning denied him one after the other simply because they were unwilling to allow him to get it via a thesis in support of geocentrism which I imagine is akin to trying to earn a PhD via a thesis in support of a young Earth as opposed to one via support of Big Bang and macro evolution).
Sungenis may appear relaxed when you see him on a video or what have you, but he keeps an extremely active schedule. I don't imagine he has time to be drawn into a debate on this forum on the question of a flat or global Earth. He dedicated 9 months of his life researching and writing up a book of well over 700 pages on the subject. Nevertheless, as I said, I will send your assessment to him and see if he cares to provide a response. Know, however, that if you want to do Sungenis real comprehensive justice on the FE/Global question you really need to access his book and not in the manner of a "cherry picker."
In the meantime, I will leave you with a quote from Sungenis found on the Internet: "Yes, strict Copernicanism will never be held again, but the 1616 and 1633 did not condemn 'strict Copernicanism' but any cosmology that made the Earth revolve around the sun, whether it was Pythagoras, Galileo, Foscarini, Copernicus or Kepler. Mr. Palm keeps avoiding this fact because it would destroy his argument."
Sungenis may say that, but it doesn't make it true. In fact, the Fathers of the Inquisition/Galileo and Bruno Affairs were literally hopping mad at the Pythagorean/Copernican Doctrine, as seen below. Doesn't sound like they held back. Neither did they specify that the globe was not included in their condemnation.
The condemnation says specifically: ‘the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture’. Pretty inclusive language.
Pg 194 and 195
On 4 September 1632 the Pope met with the Tuscan ambassador, Francesco Niccolini, and complained that Galileo’s book was ‘pernicious’, ‘troublesome and dangerous’. The Pope became agitated and bitterly enraged. Niccolini reported: His Holiness exploded in great anger, and all of a sudden told me that our Galilei had also dared to enter where he should not have, and into the most severe and dangerous matters that could be stirred up at this time . . . matters, 195 The Enemies of Galileo which involve great harm to religion and more awful than were ever devised. The Pope denounced it as ‘the most perverse subject matter that one could ever handle’.
Ambassador Niccolini explained in a letter that the Pope’s concern was not about science: ‘the Pope believes that this involves many dangers for the Faith, not that we are dealing here with mathematical matters, but about the Holy Scripture, about religion and about the Faith.’
And in April the Pope reiterated the gravity of Galileo’s crime: ‘it pains His Holiness that he [Galilei] has entered into this matter, which he [the Pope] still considers to be extremely grave and of great consequence for the [Catholic] religion.'
pg227 and 228
Next, Inchofer summarized the third official action against the New Pythagoreans: the Sacred Congregation’s condemnation of Galileo in June 1633, and that the Index had decreed that his Dialogue should be prohibited in August 1634. Inchofer then quoted the key points of the proceedings against Galileo: 228 burned alive And from what has been said, the Judgment and decree of the S. Congregation, built upon the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, we have this about the NeoPythagorean opinion, ‘it is false’, in the first place, ‘and entirely opposed to the divine Scripture, slithering perniciously into the Catholic truth’. Then, ‘It is repugnant to S. Scripture, and the true Catholic interpretation, [to be] minimally tolerated in a Christian man’, and finally, ‘totally prohibited ’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sungenis will have to prove that the globe, so closely associated with the PD was specifically not included in the condemnation , especially considering it was "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture" or that they didn't condemn "strict Copernicanism" when they considered it so dangerous to the faith and so contrary to Scripture.
There are more statements and descriptions like this in the book, but none of them favor Sungenis' wishful thinking.
-
How do flat-earthers explain the 24 hour sunlight witnessed in Antarctica by many people? https://youtu.be/8g3IbYcELDw (https://youtu.be/8g3IbYcELDw)
-
How do flat-earthers explain the 24 hour sunlight witnessed in Antarctica by many people? https://youtu.be/8g3IbYcELDw (https://youtu.be/8g3IbYcELDw)
There are many theories about how the sun operates in Antarctica, but flat earthers don't always have the luxury of equipment needed to study the particulars of celestial objects, like the lying government does. That doesn't mean earth isn't flat, it just means we don't have all the answers, mostly theories on this particular subject.
How to globers explain the sun's behavior in this video? Pretty clear it isn't 93,000,000 miles away and no need for heavy equipment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LIRBvWG1ZM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LIRBvWG1ZM)
-
There are many theories about how the sun operates in Antarctica, but flat earthers don't always have the luxury of equipment needed to study the particulars of celestial objects, like the lying government does. That doesn't mean earth isn't flat, it just means we don't have all the answers, mostly theories on this particular subject.
How to globers explain the sun's behavior in this video? Pretty clear it isn't 93,000,000 miles away and no need for heavy equipment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LIRBvWG1ZM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LIRBvWG1ZM)
You can't explain it, because it totally refutes your absurd position. You don't need special equipment to see that.
-
There are many theories about how the sun operates in Antarctica, but flat earthers don't always have the luxury of equipment needed to study the particulars of celestial objects, like the lying government does. That doesn't mean earth isn't flat, it just means we don't have all the answers, mostly theories on this particular subject.
How to globers explain the sun's behavior in this video? Pretty clear it isn't 93,000,000 miles away and no need for heavy equipment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LIRBvWG1ZM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LIRBvWG1ZM)
Can you explain how during the Southern Hemisphere's summer, on two opposite ends of the earth, for example Southern Australia and Southern Argentina, there are very long days, while the Arctic circle has 24 hour nights? Not to mention the fact that the flying routes are totally off and every commercial pilot would have to be in on this conspiracy. How is a flight from Auckland to Buenos Aires shorter than a flight from Auckland to Los Angeles? Are the commercial airlines paid to circle around North America to delay the flight to LA by a couple hours?
Is https://www.flightradar24.com using false data?
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/142251709892-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)
-
You can't explain it, because it totally refutes your absurd position. You don't need special equipment to see that.
It doesn't refute my position whatsoever. The sun moves in various ways to include the analemma, an impossible movement if earth were a moving globe because earth would have to shift out of orbit to accomplish it. In addition, you can't explain the video I sent showing the sun glowing from within the atmosphere.
-
Can you explain how during the Southern Hemisphere's summer, on two opposite ends of the earth, for example Southern Australia and Southern Argentina, there are very long days, while the Arctic circle has 24 hour nights? Not to mention the fact that the flying routes are totally off and every commercial pilot would have to be in on this conspiracy. How is a flight from Auckland to Buenos Aires shorter than a flight from Auckland to Los Angeles? Are the commercial airlines paid to circle around North America to delay the flight to LA by a couple hours?
Is https://www.flightradar24.com using false data?
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/142251709892-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)
Southern Hemisphere jet streams make a powerful difference in flight times. The question still remains as to why they don't just fly over Antarctica for an even shorter flight path, yet planes go out of their way to travel over the northern arctic region.
Search on Bitchute for "flat earth flight" to see more on that topic.
If you do a search on Bitchute for "flat earth seasons" and "24 hour sun" you'll find answers to your other questions.
-
Can you explain how during the Southern Hemisphere's summer, on two opposite ends of the earth, for example Southern Australia and Southern Argentina, there are very long days, while the Arctic circle has 24 hour nights? Not to mention the fact that the flying routes are totally off and every commercial pilot would have to be in on this conspiracy. How is a flight from Auckland to Buenos Aires shorter than a flight from Auckland to Los Angeles? Are the commercial airlines paid to circle around North America to delay the flight to LA by a couple hours?
Is https://www.flightradar24.com using false data?
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/142251709892-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)
There are many proofs that flight patterns do not work on a globe, but you'll have to read through other posts to get the info. Not just flights, but weather patterns, wind patterns, not to mention the impossibility of water bending around the outside of a ball, clinging to it as earth flies around in 4 different directions at thousands of miles per hour, plus a couple hundred other proofs earth is not a globe. As far as people being "in on a conspiracy", they don't even bother to look into it, but take the readings and measurements they're given by governments, and nothing more. In the meantime, the subject on this thread is about the heliocentric model being officially condemned by the Church. Even if it started out on a science note at first, the science part of the flat earth question has been addressed in other threads.
-
http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/ (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/)
Please advise if you know of any book that has studied the FE question in a more comprehensive and balanced way than that of the above by Dr. Robert Sungenis.
-
Southern Hemisphere jet streams make a powerful difference in flight times. The question still remains as to why they don't just fly over Antarctica for an even shorter flight path, yet planes go out of their way to travel over the northern arctic region.
Search on Bitchute for "flat earth flight" to see more on that topic.
If you do a search on Bitchute for "flat earth seasons" and "24 hour sun" you'll find answers to your other questions.
The Auckland to Buenos Aires flight doesn't need to fly over Antarctica, that would make the route longer, not shorter! According to the flat earth model, the Auckland flight to Buenos Aires would fly almost directly over LA, so how could the flight to Buenos Aires be shorter? "Jet streams" do not explain that, since LA is on the flight path to Buenos Aires on the flat earth model.
-
The Auckland to Buenos Aires flight doesn't need to fly over Antarctica, that would make the route longer, not shorter! According to the flat earth model, the Auckland flight to Buenos Aires would fly almost directly over LA, so how could the flight to Buenos Aires be shorter? "Jet streams" do not explain that, since LA is on the flight path to Buenos Aires on the flat earth model.
Well, none of the Southern Hemisphere flights fly over Antarctica or even under the "globe" to the other side.
Also on a spinning globe model the flights should just hover while the earth spins beneath them.
Tradman wants to keep this thread on track with the Catholic arguments so I'll just post this link as a starter on jetstreams.
2min 17sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BggecRQ14c6Q/
Here is one on Perth to LA going over Alaska:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrds0bP7nLE
If you want to know the answers to your questions look up the other searches for more specific information on flight paths and times etc.
You need to know that a search is futile on Youtube since even though there are some very good channels there with excellent info they are shadowbanned. So start with Bitchute.
-
http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/ (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/)
Please advise if you know of any book that has studied the FE question in a more comprehensive and balanced way than that of the above by Dr. Robert Sungenis.
There are several books on the subject more balanced than Sungenis' book. Just because he pads his book with pagan science and sources and a bunch of techno babble that comes from NASA and modern science doesn't make it comprehensive. It's chock full of supposition and error. For instance, Sungenis says we are able to understand the firmament because the birds supposedly fly there, so he dismisses it as anything we should bother with. He claims it can't cover the earth and also be a place where birds fly and stars are found. This is mind blowing to me. The firmament is the barrier between heaven and earth, shaped like an upside down bowl. Scripture describes it as a tent, giving birds and stars access in the space below. Reading the Fathers, it becomes clear the firmament includes the barrier itself and the space within the dome. No brainer. But because Sungenis is biased against flat earth, he never even considers this.
There are several comprehensive and balanced books on the subject that do not summarily reject the possibility earth is flat, like Sungenis' does. These are just a few off the top of my head.
"Earth is Not a Globe" by Parallax.https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/ free to read online.
Another is Edward Hendrie's "The Greatest Lie on Earth, Proof that Our World is not a Moving Globe".
Another is "Christian Topography" by Cosmas Indiocopleustes, also free to read online. https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ct/ct01.htm
Cosmas was well respected and one of three original copies is preserved in the Vatican library to this day. Another original is found at the Hagia Sophia library. His maps are the oldest maps in the world. Also, Cosmas is just one source for the Church Fathers who explain how earth is the microcosm for the Temple, the Tabernacle and the Ark. Along with the other Fathers of the Church, he describes heaven and earth as a two story house. Not a sphere.
The Book of Enoch is also informative when it comes to the movement of the stars, sun and moon, and it is quite detailed in it's description explaining celestial movements and physical constructs like the windows in the firmament which make it impossible earth could be a globe. Most importantly, there are several books in the bible, with clear descriptions incompatible with a spherical earth. Plus, they have the bonus guarantee of infallibility.
-
Tradman wants to keep this thread on track
I'm not complaining that the thread has gone off track (I'm one of the last people here who would have a right to ;) ), but your comment reminded me that the claims in the OP video are easily demolished (see reply 5) and no has even attempted to make an answer.
-
Also on a spinning globe model the flights should just hover while the earth spins beneath them.
Straw man, did I mention a spinning globe? We are talking about the shape of the earth, not the movement of it. The shape is proven not to be flat by the 24 hour sun light in Antarctica.
-
According to the flat earth model, there are times during the Southern Hemisphere's summer when it is daytime at opposite ends of the earth, yet night time in the Arctic circle, which is directly in the middle of the two ends on the Flat earth model! It's absurd! Does the sun bi-locate?
-
Straw man, did I mention a spinning globe? We are talking about the shape of the earth, not the movement of it. The shape is proven not to be flat by the 24 hour sun light in Antarctica.
Well, looking at the origins of this thread, I guess it might be better to start a specific Sungenis thread.
Personally, I don't mind tangents so much.
Sorry, I didn't know we were specifically talking only about the shape and not the movement.
Did you look up the search I suggested to find the answer to your question?
The 24 hour sun in Antarctica is debated with several videos you can find at Bitchute by entering:
"24 hour sun" in the search engine.
You can also do a search for "flat earth clock".
-
I'm not complaining that the thread has gone off track (I'm one of the last people here who would have a right to ;) ), but your comment reminded me that the claims in the OP video are easily demolished (see reply 5) and no has even attempted to make an answer.
Hi Emile,
Does the evidence you shared prove the earth is a globe or just that they smooth out glass?
-
Well, looking at the origins of this thread, I guess it might be better to start a specific Sungenis thread.
Personally, I don't mind tangents so much.
Sorry, I didn't know we were specifically talking only about the shape and not the movement.
Did you look up the search I suggested to find the answer to your question?
The 24 hour sun in Antarctica is debated with several videos you can find at Bitchute by entering:
"24 hour sun" in the search engine.
You can also do a search for "flat earth clock".
Please show me a video which refutes my argument, I cannot see any.
-
Please show me a video which refutes my argument, I cannot see any.
If you put "24 hour Sun" and "flat earth clock" in the search engine at Bitchute you will find many long and short videos providing the answers to your questions.
-
If you put "24 hour Sun" and "flat earth clock" in the search engine at Bitchute you will find many long and short videos providing the answers to your questions.
They claim that the videos are edited! How convenient, all evidence debunking flat earth is fake and photo-shopped! Do you hold that the video I posted is edited, then? If so, can you prove it? Would you admit that if the video were real, it would refute your absurd flat earth theory?
-
They claim that the videos are edited! How convenient, all evidence debunking flat earth is fake and photo-shopped! Do you hold that the video I posted is edited, then? If so, can you prove it? Would you admit that if the video were real, it would refute your absurd flat earth theory?
It's been proven that:
The evidence for landing on the moon is fake and edited.
NASA images of the globe earth are fake and edited.
The color NASA images of planets are fake and edited.
The spinning ball is a NASA lie.
So it's not unreasonable to wonder at the possibility of the evidence provided at Antarctica being fake and edited. I mean similar to Soviet Russia and North Korea, nobody is allowed to visit there "unescorted".
So how can you prove your video is real? You just take their word for it.
Even if you could prove it was real, I would still have many unanswered questions about the absurd globe theory.
-
Well, none of the Southern Hemisphere flights fly over Antarctica or even under the "globe" to the other side.
Also on a spinning globe model the flights should just hover while the earth spins beneath them.
Tradman wants to keep this thread on track with the Catholic arguments so I'll just post this link as a starter on jetstreams.
2min 17sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BggecRQ14c6Q/
Here is one on Perth to LA going over Alaska:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrds0bP7nLE
If you want to know the answers to your questions look up the other searches for more specific information on flight paths and times etc.
You need to know that a search is futile on Youtube since even though there are some very good channels there with excellent info they are shadowbanned. So start with Bitchute.
Thanks for answering this. Good video.
-
There are several comprehensive and balanced books on the subject that do not summarily reject the possibility earth is flat, like Sungenis' does.
How can you possibly say that?! If you had actually read Sungenis' book with an open mind you would realize that he does not "summarily reject the possibility earth is flat." He actually bends over backwards in going to great lengths to examine all of the main and most popular contenders so to speak for the flat Earth position. After carefully looking at them he rejects them and explains why.
Description of the book seen at http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/:
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/)
Flat Earth | Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis is the latest of Robert Sungenis’ intriguing works. Sparked by the recent and ongoing controversy in social media on whether the Earth is flat and covered by a dome, or is a spherical body surrounded by the vastness of space, Robert was commissioned by the Kolbe Center to write this book and show why, historically, biblically and scientifically, the globe Earth is the true reality. It is by far the most detailed and comprehensive exposé on the flat Earth theory ever written from the critical side of the debate.
Its 736 pages are divided into three sections.
The “Historical,” about 100 pages long, deals with the major personalities involved in the flat Earth movement, beginning from Rowbotham in the late 1880s to the leaders of the modern movement today – their motivations, their science, their funding, their worldview. It also reviews how modern science and modern theology have viewed Genesis 1 and how both have stumbled just as much as the flat-earthers in trying to understand both the creation story; the shape of the Earth, and the meaning of the Firmament. Included are the cultural and psychological causes and effects of both the flat Earth movement and the Big Bang cosmology of modern science.
The Biblical section, which is about 200 pages long, goes into a deep and comprehensive exegesis of every passage that is relevant to the subject of a flat Earth v. globe Earth, including the popular passages such as Isaiah 40:22 (“the circle of the Earth”) and the passages dealing with the “four corners of the Earth.” The original Hebrew and Greek of each passage is thoroughly examined. Special attention is paid to both the Church Fathers’ views on a spherical Earth, which covers 80 pages of analysis; as well as a thorough exegesis and applicability of the Firmament. It also presents, for the first time in current literature, the case for the dubious origin of the “dome” concept, which takes about 70 pages of analysis.
Finally, the Scientific section, in 400 pages of detailed analysis, covers most of the arguments flat-earthers use to defend their model, including NASA and photos of the Earth, the Chicago skyline as seen from Lake Michigan, Antarctica and the ice wall, gravity and the vacuum of space, and 40 other topics. It is divided into astronomical-based evidence and Earth-based evidence.
-
Even if you could prove it was real, I would still have many unanswered questions about the absurd globe theory.
Exactly my point, even if it is real, that wouldn't matter to you, you would keep believing in your insane theory that the sun can be seen from two opposite ends of the earth, while the middle (arctic circle on the flat-earth map) is pitch-black night time. That is, frankly, insanity. You are not drawing logical conclusions from evidence presented, you are choosing a conclusion and finding evidence to support it.
-
With big cօռspιʀαcιҽs, they can never keep everybody silent. Just look at the covid vaccine, how many doctors around the world came forward and denounced it as poison! Look at all the engineers that came forward and said the twin towers were demolished! Look at the gas chamber experts (albeit very few had the courage) who denounced the Auschwitz gas chamber hoax with evidence! Isn't it interesting, that out of the thousands of people that have gone to Antarctica during the summer months over the past 100 years, not one of them has spilled the beans that it's not actually a 24-hour day there, and that the videos are fake, as Miser Peccator claims?!
-
Hi Emile,
Does the evidence you shared prove the earth is a globe or just that they smooth out glass?
Hi MP,
The OP video claims that float glass is perfectly flat and it's surfaces are perfectly parallel (meaning that there would be no thickness variation) and therefore the Earth must also be flat.
Glass is not "perfectly flat" (as post 5 evidences) nor does it have perfect uniformity of thickness (a common standard is .004 (in.) in 4 inches, which, in precision measurement, might as well be a mile).
I suppose the video creator pictures something like a tide model and tries to scale it down:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVlb9S0.png)
The short of it is:
Whether the Earth is flat or spherical, I don't know, but I do know that the guy who made the video doesn't know squat about precision measurement and apparently doesn't do much research; that's about the only thing that his video proves.
-
Hi MP,
The OP video claims that float glass is perfectly flat and it's surfaces are perfectly parallel (meaning that there would be no thickness variation) and therefore the Earth must also be flat.
Glass is not "perfectly flat" (as post 5 evidences) nor does it have perfect uniformity of thickness (a common standard is .004 (in.) in 4 inches, which, in precision measurement, might as well be a mile).
I suppose the video creator pictures something like a tide model and tries to scale it down:
(https://i.imgur.com/QVlb9S0.png)
The short of it is:
Whether the Earth is flat or spherical, I don't know, but I do know that the guy who made the video doesn't know squat about precision measurement and apparently doesn't do much research; that's about the only thing that his video proves.
I see, thanks!
-
With big cօռspιʀαcιҽs, they can never keep everybody silent. Just look at the covid vaccine, how many doctors around the world came forward and denounced it as poison! Look at all the engineers that came forward and said the twin towers were demolished! Look at the gas chamber experts (albeit very few had the courage) who denounced the Auschwitz gas chamber hoax with evidence! Isn't it interesting, that out of the thousands of people that have gone to Antarctica during the summer months over the past 100 years, not one of them has spilled the beans that it's not actually a 24-hour day there, and that the videos are fake, as Miser Peccator claims?!
The video I posted earlier talked about how pilates who speak out are fired. This is just like professors who espouse intelligent design.
I don't know if the video you posted is real or fake. Do you? Do you know for certain that nobody has spilled the beans about Antarctica?
What I said was that even if the video was proven real, I would still
have questions about some absurd globe earth theories.
Is it insane to ask questions? I don't think so.
Questions such as:
Why do they lie to everyone about the earth spinning? Many think you are insane to even question that.
Why did they fake the moon landing?
Why do they create fake photos of the ball earth? Why not just take a snapshot while they are out there?
Why can't people explore Antarctica?
How do all the warring nations of the world maintain a peaceful treaty in Antarctica for decades and decades? It's known to have valuable resources.
Why do we fly over the Northern Arctic Region when it is clearly way out of the way of the flight path?
Why don't planes fly under the globe but only over it?
If the curve is 8in per square mile and a huge ocean liner can be hidden behind the curve at 5 miles out, why can't I clearly see a curve when viewing a five mile segment of the horizon on the left and on the right?
Why can't we see the curve when flying at 30,000 feet?
How exactly does water curve anyway? Why can't we reproduce that effect? On the contrary, water is used as a level for land surveying and building.
Why don't skylines such as Phoenix and Las Vegas have buildings tilting left and right at either end? 8 inches per mile??
Why do Nikon P90 cameras see things that should be hidden by the curve?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask questions about both the flat earth and the globe theories.
You asked some good questions about flat earth theory that seem absurd and I tried to help you by pointing you to some resources you can research for some explanations.
If you do a search at Bitchute for "arctic sun" you'll find more info on that topic regarding your questions about the visibility of the sun at the north pole on a flat earth model.
Here is just one, but I usually like to look at more than one to grasp concepts and hear different possible explanations.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mCTOQTL2551M/
You figured out they lied to you (and all the school children around the world) about the spinning part which is clearly absurd, but you don't think they could possibly be lying to you about the ball part?
Do I have all the answers? No.
Do you? No.
Nobody does.
We just research the evidence and weigh it.
-
The video I posted earlier talked about how pilates who speak out are fired. This is just like professors who espouse intelligent design.
I don't know if the video you posted is real or fake. Do you? Do you know for certain that nobody has spilled the beans about Antarctica?
What I said was that even if the video was proven real, I would still
have questions about some absurd globe earth theories.
Is it insane to ask questions? I don't think so.
Questions such as:
Why do they lie to everyone about the earth spinning? Many think you are insane to even question that.
Why did they fake the moon landing?
Why do they create fake photos of the ball earth? Why not just take a snapshot while they are out there?
Why can't people explore Antarctica?
How do all the warring nations of the world maintain a peaceful treaty in Antarctica for decades and decades? It's known to have valuable resources.
Why do we fly over the Northern Arctic Region when it is clearly way out of the way of the flight path?
Why don't planes fly under the globe but only over it?
If the curve is 8in per square mile and a huge ocean liner can be hidden behind the curve at 5 miles out, why can't I clearly see a curve when viewing a five mile segment of the horizon on the left and on the right?
Why can't we see the curve when flying at 30,000 feet?
How exactly does water curve anyway? Why can't we reproduce that effect? On the contrary, water is used as a level for land surveying and building.
Why don't skylines such as Phoenix and Las Vegas have buildings tilting left and right at either end? 8 inches per mile??
Why do Nikon P90 cameras see things that should be hidden by the curve?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask questions about both the flat earth and the globe theories.
You asked some good questions about flat earth theory that seem absurd and I tried to help you by pointing you to some resources you can research for some explanations.
If you do a search at Bitchute for "arctic sun" you'll find more info on that topic regarding your questions about the visibility of the sun at the north pole on a flat earth model.
Here is just one, but I usually like to look at more than one to grasp concepts and hear different possible explanations.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mCTOQTL2551M/
You figured out they lied to you (and all the school children around the world) about the spinning part which is clearly absurd, but you don't think they could possibly be lying to you about the ball part?
Do I have all the answers? No.
Do you? No.
Nobody does.
We just research the evidence and weigh it.
You should watch this: https://youtu.be/KnqBzncqS2U (https://youtu.be/KnqBzncqS2U)
-
You should watch this: https://youtu.be/KnqBzncqS2U (https://youtu.be/KnqBzncqS2U)
Does it answer my questions?
-
How can you possibly say that?! If you had actually read Sungenis' book with an open mind you would realize that he does not "summarily reject the possibility earth is flat." He actually bends over backwards in going to great lengths to examine all of the main and most popular contenders so to speak for the flat Earth position. After carefully looking at them he rejects them and explains why.
Description of the book seen at http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/:
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/)
Flat Earth | Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis is the latest of Robert Sungenis’ intriguing works. Sparked by the recent and ongoing controversy in social media on whether the Earth is flat and covered by a dome, or is a spherical body surrounded by the vastness of space, Robert was commissioned by the Kolbe Center to write this book and show why, historically, biblically and scientifically, the globe Earth is the true reality. It is by far the most detailed and comprehensive exposé on the flat Earth theory ever written from the critical side of the debate.
Its 736 pages are divided into three sections.
The “Historical,” about 100 pages long, deals with the major personalities involved in the flat Earth movement, beginning from Rowbotham in the late 1880s to the leaders of the modern movement today – their motivations, their science, their funding, their worldview. It also reviews how modern science and modern theology have viewed Genesis 1 and how both have stumbled just as much as the flat-earthers in trying to understand both the creation story; the shape of the Earth, and the meaning of the Firmament. Included are the cultural and psychological causes and effects of both the flat Earth movement and the Big Bang cosmology of modern science.
The Biblical section, which is about 200 pages long, goes into a deep and comprehensive exegesis of every passage that is relevant to the subject of a flat Earth v. globe Earth, including the popular passages such as Isaiah 40:22 (“the circle of the Earth”) and the passages dealing with the “four corners of the Earth.” The original Hebrew and Greek of each passage is thoroughly examined. Special attention is paid to both the Church Fathers’ views on a spherical Earth, which covers 80 pages of analysis; as well as a thorough exegesis and applicability of the Firmament. It also presents, for the first time in current literature, the case for the dubious origin of the “dome” concept, which takes about 70 pages of analysis.
Finally, the Scientific section, in 400 pages of detailed analysis, covers most of the arguments flat-earthers use to defend their model, including NASA and photos of the Earth, the Chicago skyline as seen from Lake Michigan, Antarctica and the ice wall, gravity and the vacuum of space, and 40 other topics. It is divided into astronomical-based evidence and Earth-based evidence.
Everything you attribute to Sungenis above is provably wrong. Let's take Sungenis' dubious origin of the "dome". The Fathers agree the firmament is a hard impassable divider above which is fresh water, for rain. St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Basil and Origen taught the firmament/dome is the impassible barrier between heaven and earth. Here are the sources.
Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
So much for Sungenis' ridiculous "dubious" assessment of the firmament. Please address this discrepancy rather than assume Sungenis's understanding is greater than Augustine's.
I don't remember what Sungenis said about the "circle of the earth" but since he disagrees with definitions of words used in Isaiah 40:22 and 22:18 I don't care how many pages he spent trying to undo them. The passage speaks of God as the One sitting above the circle of the earth. This verse implies that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (chug) or in the context which necessarily suggests anything more than the circularity of the flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 has given us as the meaning. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.'
Dur and chug are two different words meaning two different things. Just like ball and circle are not interchangeable. Earth is described with the word chug, meaning circle, not dur, meaning ball or sphere. These definitions are available to Sungenis, too, so why doesn't he check this stuff?
If Sungenis covers 80 pages of analysis on the Fathers' view of a spherical earth, please provide some excerpts. I'd love to hear what he thinks they said because there is literally no Church Father that has ever sourced Scripture to prove earth is a ball, moving or otherwise. However, there are plenty who have sourced Scripture to prove earth is flat and stationary and they wax poetic with philosophical and scriptural proofs to back it all up.
Are you able to answer the things I provided in this thread? I don't want to waste my time responding to nonsense and talking to thin air if you're not going to read anything or respond. I listed several saints and Fathers who wrote extensively on the shape of the earth and 100% of them teach that earth is flat. If I'm wrong, show me. If I'm right, ask for more info and I'll provide even more quotes and sources. The Fathers certainly carry more weight than Sungenis IMHO. I challenged you to find one single Father that used scripture to prove earth is a sphere. Please respond. Use Sungenis if you have to. I have an arsenal of Catholic history perhaps you are unaware of, but then, Sungenis must be unaware as well because so much is absent in his book. I provided quotes from the Galileo/Bruno Affair, explaining how the hierarchy despised PD to the core, that the pope and Bellarmine condemned it absolutely and entirely, never sparing the globe. If you are not going to respond with proof to the contrary, or ask for clarification even, then this would no longer be a dialogue but a monologue telling me how Sungenis' credentials are a substitute for the truth.
-
You should watch this: https://youtu.be/KnqBzncqS2U (https://youtu.be/KnqBzncqS2U)
I've only watched a little bit and it's interesting because I have a personal experience with the Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ issue.
I was a flight attendant many years ago and I asked the pilots questions such as:
Do we have to keep tilting the plane down in front to accommodate going over the curve because I've never felt that and they said no.
You can easily feel every little adjustment to the level of the plane on the port/starboard sides or forward or aft. Your food on your tray slides in the direction of the tilt.
Even when you land a plane you never lean forward or tilt down in front. Tilting the plane down in front would be very scary to say the least! People would scream!
Yet if you don't tilt the plane down and continue at a level altitude you would fly straight off into space.
Consider the 8 inches per square mile drop which would be very noticeable inflight. Here is an earth curve chart showing how after 10 miles you would drop 66 feet!
Distance Height
Miles Feet
--------------------------
1.0 0.67
1.23 1.0
3.0 5.95
3.9 10
6.0 23.8
10 66
12.3 100
20 264
30 595
39 1000
40 1060
50 1650
60 2380
70 3240
87 5000
100 6610
110 8000
120 9520
123 10000
129 11000
135 12000
140 13000
146 14000
148 14496
Also if you look at the downtown strip of Phoenix or Las Vegas after only 6 miles there should be a 23 foot drop on the left and right. After 10 miles it should drop 66 feet!
The same goes when you look out on the ocean horizon. You should see the curve on the left and right.
Anyway, Eric Dubay is a creepy guy but his statement about the Freemason secret resonates with me because of a personal experience. I shared it back in December:
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/thoughts-on-why-i-see-the-flat-earth-theory-is-likely-a-disinformation-campaign/msg794688/#msg794688
The FO mumbled something about having to be a Freemason and the Captain was visibly angry about it. I had noooo idea what Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was all about but it stayed in the back of my mind because it was such an odd thing to say. I didn't know anything about those guys in lodges except what I had seen on the Flintstones. LOL.
-
Everything you attribute to Sungenis above is provably wrong. Let's take Sungenis' dubious origin of the "dome". The Fathers agree the firmament is a hard impassable divider above which is fresh water, for rain. St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Basil and Origen taught the firmament/dome is the impassible barrier between heaven and earth. Here are the sources.
Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
So much for Sungenis' ridiculous "dubious" assessment of the firmament. Please address this discrepancy rather than assume Sungenis's understanding is greater than Augustine's.
I don't remember what Sungenis said about the "circle of the earth" but since he disagrees with definitions of words used in Isaiah 40:22 and 22:18 I don't care how many pages he spent trying to undo them. The passage speaks of God as the One sitting above the circle of the earth. This verse implies that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (chug) or in the context which necessarily suggests anything more than the circularity of the flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 has given us as the meaning. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.'
Dur and chug are two different words meaning two different things. Just like ball and circle are not interchangeable. Earth is described with the word chug, meaning circle, not dur, meaning ball or sphere. These definitions are available to Sungenis, too, so why doesn't he check this stuff?
If Sungenis covers 80 pages of analysis on the Fathers' view of a spherical earth, please provide some excerpts. I'd love to hear what he thinks they said because there is literally no Church Father that has ever sourced Scripture to prove earth is a ball, moving or otherwise. However, there are plenty who have sourced Scripture to prove earth is flat and stationary and they wax poetic with philosophical and scriptural proofs to back it all up.
Are you able to answer the things I provided in this thread? I don't want to waste my time responding to nonsense and talking to thin air if you're not going to read anything or respond. I listed several saints and Fathers who wrote extensively on the shape of the earth and 100% of them teach that earth is flat. If I'm wrong, show me. If I'm right, ask for more info and I'll provide even more quotes and sources. The Fathers certainly carry more weight than Sungenis IMHO. I challenged you to find one single Father that used scripture to prove earth is a sphere. Please respond. Use Sungenis if you have to. I have an arsenal of Catholic history perhaps you are unaware of, but then, Sungenis must be unaware as well because so much is absent in his book. I provided quotes from the Galileo/Bruno Affair, explaining how the hierarchy despised PD to the core, that the pope and Bellarmine condemned it absolutely and entirely, never sparing the globe. If you are not going to respond with proof to the contrary, or ask for clarification even, then this would no longer be a dialogue but a monologue telling me how Sungenis' credentials are a substitute for the truth.
Tradman, do you discredit the credibility of the Kolbe Center just as you do of Sungenis? Do you believe the Kolbe Center is leading Catholics and others astray in the same way that you say Sungenis is?
This is what the Kolbe Center has to say about Robert Sungenis' book: https://www.kolbecenter.org/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong-an-historical-biblical-scientific-analysis-e-book-pdf/ (https://www.kolbecenter.org/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong-an-historical-biblical-scientific-analysis-e-book-pdf/)
[img width=600 height=400 title=flat-earth-flat-wrong-pdf]https://i0.wp.com/www.kolbecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/flat-earth-flat-wrong-pdf.jpg?fit=600%2C400&ssl=1[/img] (https://i0.wp.com/www.kolbecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/flat-earth-flat-wrong-pdf.jpg?fit=1350%2C900&ssl=1)
Flat Earth/Flat Wrong – An Historical, Biblical & Scientific Analysis – E-Book (PDF)
$10.00
Disillusionment with the dishonesty of much of what passes for mainstream science and journalism has led to the rise of a flat earth or convex earth movement throughout the world. The movement has been fueled by professional videos that highlight certain genuine anomalies that are difficult–but not impossible–to explain within a globe-earth framework. The movement has also been supported by an exegesis of Genesis 1-3 which appears to be motivated by a genuine desire to honor the literal historical truth of God’s Revelation to Moses but which deviates from the authentic exegesis of the text, as understood by the Fathers of the Church and as confirmed by empirical science. As a result, thousands of sincere Christians, both Catholic and non-Catholic, have been distracted from the work of authentic catechesis and evangelization, and have become preoccupied with promoting the Flat Earth hypothesis instead. Robert Sungenis has done the Church and the world a great service by demonstrating that sound Biblical scholarship, authentic Catholic Tradition, and sound empirical science confirm the globe-shape of the Earth, as depicted in the iconography of the Church for many centuries. Anyone wanting to purchase a print version of the book may do so at this link: http://flatearthflatwrong.com/ (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/)
-
Tradman, do you discredit the credibility of the Kolbe Center just as you do of Sungenis? Do you believe the Kolbe Center is leading Catholics and others astray in the same way that you say Sungenis is?
Just like Sungenis, there are many reasons to appreciate the Kolbe Center, but their minds are closed to flat earth probably because they have Sungenis and Sungenis has them. They maintain an echo chamber where they can talk each other out of any reasonable consideration for the full truth even if they know there are lies in the system. For instance, they know NASA is lying about the earth spinning and jetting through space, but they refuse to believe NASA is lying about earth being a ball. But hey, they are credentialed so everything they say is gospel even when it's proven otherwise. Both recognize 1/2 of the problems infecting the sciences, yet both refuse to truly consider that the other 1/2 is part of the whole.
-
How can you possibly say that?! If you had actually read Sungenis' book with an open mind you would realize that he does not "summarily reject the possibility earth is flat." He actually bends over backwards in going to great lengths to examine all of the main and most popular contenders so to speak for the flat Earth position. After carefully looking at them he rejects them and explains why.
Description of the book seen at http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/:
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/)
Flat Earth | Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis is the latest of Robert Sungenis’ intriguing works. Sparked by the recent and ongoing controversy in social media on whether the Earth is flat and covered by a dome, or is a spherical body surrounded by the vastness of space, Robert was commissioned by the Kolbe Center to write this book and show why, historically, biblically and scientifically, the globe Earth is the true reality. It is by far the most detailed and comprehensive exposé on the flat Earth theory ever written from the critical side of the debate.
Its 736 pages are divided into three sections.
The “Historical,” about 100 pages long, deals with the major personalities involved in the flat Earth movement, beginning from Rowbotham in the late 1880s to the leaders of the modern movement today – their motivations, their science, their funding, their worldview. It also reviews how modern science and modern theology have viewed Genesis 1 and how both have stumbled just as much as the flat-earthers in trying to understand both the creation story; the shape of the Earth, and the meaning of the Firmament. Included are the cultural and psychological causes and effects of both the flat Earth movement and the Big Bang cosmology of modern science.
The Biblical section, which is about 200 pages long, goes into a deep and comprehensive exegesis of every passage that is relevant to the subject of a flat Earth v. globe Earth, including the popular passages such as Isaiah 40:22 (“the circle of the Earth”) and the passages dealing with the “four corners of the Earth.” The original Hebrew and Greek of each passage is thoroughly examined. Special attention is paid to both the Church Fathers’ views on a spherical Earth, which covers 80 pages of analysis; as well as a thorough exegesis and applicability of the Firmament. It also presents, for the first time in current literature, the case for the dubious origin of the “dome” concept, which takes about 70 pages of analysis.
Finally, the Scientific section, in 400 pages of detailed analysis, covers most of the arguments flat-earthers use to defend their model, including NASA and photos of the Earth, the Chicago skyline as seen from Lake Michigan, Antarctica and the ice wall, gravity and the vacuum of space, and 40 other topics. It is divided into astronomical-based evidence and Earth-based evidence.
Quote from: Tradman on Today at 12:27:07 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/glass-production-proves-earth-is-flat/msg829668/#msg829668)
Everything you attribute to Sungenis above is provably wrong.
I'm attributing the book Flat Earth Flat Wrong to him. Sungenis is the author of the book. Are you trying to say that everything as in every single thing Sungenis says in his book to refute the flat earth position including all those he quotes in the book in support of a globe earth are provably wrong?
-
Quote from: Tradman on Today at 12:27:07 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/glass-production-proves-earth-is-flat/msg829668/#msg829668)
Everything you attribute to Sungenis above is provably wrong.
I'm attributing the book Flat Earth Flat Wrong to him. Sungenis is the author of the book. Are you trying to say that everything as in every single thing Sungenis says in his book to refute the flat earth position including all those he quotes in the book in support of a globe earth are provably wrong?
Look, of myself I can prove nothing. I can only repeat what is already written by Catholic authorities and take the backlash for saying it out loud. The Fathers have spoken. Science has spoken. Instruments of measurement have spoken. It's all available for the taking. Can every ounce of minutia published in 700+ pages of pagan-sourced science the good doctor penned be proven wrong? I wonder. What I don't wonder is that the bulk of Sungenis' book, no doubt written as an opinion with good intentions, cannot stand up to the teachings of the Fathers on this subject. I'll say most (if not all) arguments against flat earth can be fleshed out by those who tried to tell us long ago what was going on and how badly it would affect our world. Science, math and reason can fill in the blanks. Although I recognize the gravity of the situation, it would take a better man than I to explain how evil and pervasive the globe lie is. That it contributed to the Great Apostasy and the destruction of Christendom I personally, am certain. Not to be all doom and gloom, I cheer NASA who backhandedly rallies along side flat earthers to disprove the sphere because they've been exposed as flat-out liars. Just like the Brunos, Galileos, Copernicans and Einsteins who persisted in pushing their demonic theory wound up condemned. One stumbling block is that globers pretend everything is relative, so they deflect, change the subject, even launch other arguments rather than admit defeat. They literally force you to go round and round. Still, there's always hope.
-
Look, of myself I can prove nothing. I can only repeat what is already written by Catholic authorities and take the backlash for saying it out loud. The Fathers have spoken. Science has spoken. Instruments of measurement have spoken. It's all available for the taking. Can every ounce of minutia published in 700+ pages of pagan-sourced science the good doctor penned be proven wrong? I wonder. What I don't wonder is that the bulk of Sungenis' book, no doubt written as an opinion with good intentions, cannot stand up to the teachings of the Fathers on this subject. I'll say most (if not all) arguments against flat earth can be fleshed out by those who tried to tell us long ago what was going on and how badly it would affect our world. Science, math and reason can fill in the blanks. Although I recognize the gravity of the situation, it would take a better man than I to explain how evil and pervasive the globe lie is. That it contributed to the Great Apostasy and the destruction of Christendom I personally, am certain. Not to be all doom and gloom, I cheer NASA who backhandedly rallies along side flat earthers to disprove the sphere because they've been exposed as flat-out liars. Just like the Brunos, Galileos, Copernicans and Einsteins who persisted in pushing their demonic theory wound up condemned. One stumbling block is that globers pretend everything is relative, so they deflect, change the subject, even launch other arguments rather than admit defeat. They literally force you to go round and round. Still, there's always hope.
Amazing! Quite a lot you have let loose here in a relatively short space! Thank you! I certainly don't agree with your FE position, but I'm just a messenger. The message is contained within the pages of Sungenis' book which I suspect very few FE folks care to acquire (even in PDF for a mere 10 bucks), much less actually read.
Oh well, I guess I will just have to inform Sungenis that the "globe lie" his book is promoting is the same lie which in your words above has "contributed to the Great Apostasy and the destruction of Christendom." I hope he survives the shock.
-
Amazing! Quite a lot you have let loose here in a relatively short space! Thank you! I certainly don't agree with your FE position, but I'm just a messenger. The message is contained within the pages of Sungenis' book which I suspect very few FE folks care to acquire (even in PDF for a mere 10 bucks), much less actually read.
Oh well, I guess I will just have to inform Sungenis that the "globe lie" his book is promoting is the same lie which in your words above has "contributed to the Great Apostasy and the destruction of Christendom." I hope he survives the shock.
Charity, rather than repeat again and again how long the book is and how smart Sungenis is, why don't you refute the specific evidence that Tradman posted?
If you have read the book, surely you can provide the evidence.
-
Also on a spinning globe model the flights should just hover while the earth spins beneath them.
You do know that air interacts with objects, that's how wind can blow things. Air has friction when flowing by other objects. This is partially why leaves only fall so fast, and cars have a hard time driving faster than 200mph. There's so much friction between the object and air, that they can't go faster, similar to how pressing the brakes slightly on a car going down hill can keep it from accelerating down hill while not slowing it down either. Have you heard of a wind break? Trees that block wind from blowing as hard as it would across an open field? Considering this friction between air and the trees and the surface of the earth, the atmosphere naturally wants to move at the same speed as the ground.
If the ground isn't moving, then neither is the air. That friction stops the wind from blowing or else the wind would never stop, just like how air stops moving in your house shortly after a fan is turned off. Wind can only blow if something else is adding energy to it. If the earth is rotating according to the globe theory, the air would want to match the speed of the ground, such that the air and the ground move as one, having no speed difference between them while both are moving as the globe rotates.
Airplanes also experience friction with air, and when on the ground, they are travelling just as fast as the globe is rotating. When an airplane leaves the ground, it will not suddenly stop moving while the earth spins beneath it. That would suggest that some outside force acted on the airplane stopping it's motion, making it's motion zero relative to the sum of all the stars and planets and things in space including the earth. Also, the friction of the air would continue to keep the airplane moving at least as fast as the earth rotates, other than how fast the airplane is propelling itself through the air. You could say that planes swim through the air because the air is a fluid according to modern science.
As far as I know, on calm seas a person can swim in a pool on a moving cruise ship just the same as if the pool was built in the ground without hovering floating while the earth ship spins moves beneath them.
If the curve is 8in per square mile and a huge ocean liner can be hidden behind the curve at 5 miles out, why can't I clearly see a curve when viewing a five mile segment of the horizon on the left and on the right?
I don't know how much the curve is supposed to be, but 8" per mile sounds really small: 8 inches for every 63,360 inches in a mile. Your perspective has a lot to do with it too. With your eyes about 5 feet off the ground, the ground will appear to rise up near eye level at the horizon. That alone may affect any curvature you would see, but we're talking about noticing 8 inch rise over the distance of a mile. You might notice the bump of an 8" tall rock 1 mile out, but not the gradual change of 8". And it's no different with 40" 5 miles out, because now we're talking 5 miles! With a globe earth, eventually the ground will curve out of site. That's why things disappear at the horizon. But the higher we are, the farther we can see before the ground curves out of site, if the haziness of the air doesn't limit our view first.
Why can't we see the curve when flying at 30,000 feet?
Because the earth is so large that a distance of 30,000ft is not far enough to shrink the size of the earth in our perspective enough to be able to notice the curve. Just yesterday, after reading this thread, I remembered a Mythbusters episode that showed the curve of the earth at 70,000ft when one of the hosts of the show flew in a plane up that high. After watching the clip, I quickly realized that they were faking the curve with wide angle camera lenses, because they show 2 different views with significantly different amounts of curve that are not realistic given the size of the land seen below. In the camera view showing the host, you can see the horizon behind him looks flat or nearly flat even at 70,000ft. This made me start to wonder if flat earth was true.
I know very little about math, so I can't find out how much curve the earth should have at 70,000ft, so I compared the view they showed from the plane to known land marks on google maps. I found that the farthest I could see from that plane was more or less to the east California state line, they were flying a few miles west of the coast. For a better understanding of perspective I found a land mark, the San Francisco bay, which has a width of about 70,000ft or 13miles. based on what a small fraction 13 miles is compared to the width of California, they really were not very far away from the surface of the earth. According to the NASA link below, I was able to determine that if you compared them flying 13 miles above the earth to the earth being scaled down to an 8" plate, they would be only a fingernail's thickness or two off the edge of the plate. If you can even get you're eye that close to the plate, you will see how little the plate appears to curve. But, there is a limit to how little an 8" plate will appear to curve no matter how close you look at it, because 8" is way smaller than 8000 miles. Just look at how little the earth appears to curve in the picture in the Nasa link 200 miles or 1,056,000 feet above the ground.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosphere.html#:~:text=The%20Earth's%20atmosphere%20is%20an,atmosphere%20is%20about%2060%20miles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1df5x4-wVc
How exactly does water curve anyway? Why can't we reproduce that effect? On the contrary, water is used as a level for land surveying and building.
Take a close look at a single drop of water on a hard surface. It is curved on top, right? Water in large pools is flat because gravity is pulling it down all in the same direction. On a globe earth, gravity is pulling all things toward the center of the earth, so water is evenly pulled down around the globe causing it to curve. I could be wrong, but I think in zero gravity conditions, a pool of floating water would tend toward a spherical shape just by surface tension alone if not for it's own gravity. The water used in a level has no need what so ever to be flat. The water is just a means of pushing a bubble of air around to whichever side is up, a round bubble, which means the water is actually curved around that bubble.
Why don't skylines such as Phoenix and Las Vegas have buildings tilting left and right at either end? 8 inches per mile??
Not being a math expert, I can't give you the formula or proof, but I do know that an 8" rise per mile would cause such a subtle curve that the angle it would tilt a building would be unnoticeable, and even less noticeable at the distance required to see 2 buildings that are miles apart.
-
I've only watched a little bit and it's interesting because I have a personal experience with the Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ issue.
I was a flight attendant many years ago and I asked the pilots questions such as:
Do we have to keep tilting the plane down in front to accommodate going over the curve because I've never felt that and they said no.
You can easily feel every little adjustment to the level of the plane on the port/starboard sides or forward or aft. Your food on your tray slides in the direction of the tilt.
Even when you land a plane you never lean forward or tilt down in front. Tilting the plane down in front would be very scary to say the least! People would scream!
Yet if you don't tilt the plane down and continue at a level altitude you would fly straight off into space.
Consider the 8 inches per square mile drop which would be very noticeable inflight. Here is an earth curve chart showing how after 10 miles you would drop 66 feet!
Distance Height
Miles Feet
--------------------------
1.0 0.67
1.23 1.0
3.0 5.95
3.9 10
6.0 23.8
10 66
12.3 100
20 264
30 595
39 1000
40 1060
50 1650
60 2380
70 3240
87 5000
100 6610
110 8000
120 9520
123 10000
129 11000
135 12000
140 13000
146 14000
148 14496
Also if you look at the downtown strip of Phoenix or Las Vegas after only 6 miles there should be a 23 foot drop on the left and right. After 10 miles it should drop 66 feet!
The same goes when you look out on the ocean horizon. You should see the curve on the left and right.
Anyway, Eric Dubay is a creepy guy but his statement about the Freemason secret resonates with me because of a personal experience. I shared it back in December:
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/thoughts-on-why-i-see-the-flat-earth-theory-is-likely-a-disinformation-campaign/msg794688/#msg794688
The FO mumbled something about having to be a Freemason and the Captain was visibly angry about it. I had noooo idea what Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was all about but it stayed in the back of my mind because it was such an odd thing to say. I didn't know anything about those guys in lodges except what I had seen on the Flintstones. LOL.
The plane basically tilts itself down, and it happens so slowly that you wouldn't notice it. The air changes density as altitude changes with thinner air at higher altitudes. For airplanes to fly at higher altitudes, they need to put forth more effort: more engine power, faster speed, or generate more lift somehow, like putting the flaps down. So, as the airplane tries to fly out into space, it is continuously running out of air to maintain lift, so airplanes quite naturally maintain a constant altitude.
-
Not being a math expert, I can't give you the formula or proof, but I do know that an 8" rise per mile would cause such a subtle curve that the angle it would tilt a building would be unnoticeable, and even less noticeable at the distance required to see 2 buildings that are miles apart.
Hi St Giles,
Those are some interesting thoughts and much of this has already been discussed at length here at CI. There are many videos that go into the science as well as the testimony of pilots and engineers who dispute what you're saying. It's too much for me to post all of it, but it might be interesting for you to research.
I'm no math expert either. lol :P
But we are in luck because the ball earth scientists already did the math for us. So I'm just using the measurements which ball earth scientists use.
Multiple ball earth sources show that the accepted math with regards to calculating the curve of the earth is according to the table I posted.
I stated it wrong though. It's 8 inches per mile squared (not 8 inches per square mile).
That is why most people will tell you that ships generally disappear from view behind the curve at about 6 miles out.
According to the chart at 6miles out it's a 23 foot drop so that makes sense.
The amazing thing about that curve which hides things at 6 miles out---it only works in one direction.
Apparently the earth only curves as the ship goes further out to sea away from you. It's a large enough curve to hide a whole ship behind it.
But, if the ship travels from left to right for five miles it stays level and there is no visible curve. Do you really buy that?
Shouldn't there also be a 23 foot drop on the left and on the right?
So the ship travelling away from you supposedly goes over the curve and disappears from view behind it while you stand on the ground. You don't need a lot of elevation to observe that curve, right?
Yet, even if you go up 30,000 feet in the air, you still can't see the curve from left to right. Hmmm....that's a magical curve.
Anyway, I'm just using the calculations scientists give us and my own eye balls. It doesn't really take complicated and exact math.
The Las Vegas strip is 4.2 miles long.
According to the chart, the buildings on the ends of the strip should be 10 feet lower on the "curve".
Central Avenue in Phoenix is 20 miles long. According to the chart the buildings on the ends should be 264 feet lower on the "curve".
There would be a lot of leaning over going on.
-
I think at 5 miles out, 23 feet would still be too small to notice viewed from 5 ft off the ground, of the curve is already subtle at 1 million feet off the ground.
The distance you would have to be away from 2 buildings 20 miles apart would make them too small and short to see any tilt. Maybe if a powerful spotlight was attached to each building on a hazy night, pointed up and perfectly aligned to the buildings, you might be able to see from far away how much the buildings lean apart if any.
This flat earth stuff is new to me, so I have a mind to argue it.
Have flat earthers explained the satellites in the sky I can see at night?
Either way, one's belief flat or round does not affect their salvation as far as I know.
-
Straw man, did I mention a spinning globe? We are talking about the shape of the earth, not the movement of it. The shape is proven not to be flat by the 24 hour sun light in Antarctica.
I've been away. Indeed, a 24-hour sun would at least invalidate the current proposed FE model, though it would not prove globe per se.
Problem there is that there is no evidence of there being 24-hour sun in Antarctica. Oddly enough, the two videos they put out there purporting to show the phenomenon have been PROVEN to be frauds and/or heavily edited with sections removed. That is incredibly suspicious. One is supposedly a web-cam, but as you watch the shadows move around objects, when it gets about 2/3 of the way around, there's a video glitch where it goes back to its starting spot. You never once see the shadow make a full circle around, and the video is edited. There's another one where there's a serious discrepancy with the background at the beginning and at the end, as the camera is purportedly rotating around and following the sun, and also some re-peat (cut and paste video).
It would be very simple to falsify Flat Earth by a simple circuм-aviation of Antarctica (there are even-commercial planes that have the necessary fuel capacity to make it around and then some) given its purported circuмference.
-
I think at 5 miles out, 23 feet would still be too small to notice viewed from 5 ft off the ground, of the curve is already subtle at 1 million feet off the ground.
There should be a drop of 8 inches per mile at 6 feet. Which means the curve should be noticeable at certain distances, but, it actually isn't, as there are now cameras that allow you to see much farther than the purported curvature.
The distance you would have to be away from 2 buildings 20 miles apart would make them too small and short to see any tilt. Maybe if a powerful spotlight was attached to each building on a hazy night, pointed up and perfectly aligned to the buildings, you might be able to see from far away how much the buildings lean apart if any.
There's several experiments where lasers were used at a distance which should have hid them behind a curve, but they hit their target without any issue. They're on bitchute, which I cannot access at the moment. These tests, and those like it, are explained away as a trick of refraction around the curvature, which is nonsense.
This flat earth stuff is new to me, so I have a mind to argue it.
Have flat earthers explained the satellites in the sky I can see at night?
Look into NASA's helium budget, it's outrageous. Some purport that satellites we see are tethered to high-altitude balloons. It's not a definitive explanation, unfortunately.
Either way, one's belief flat or round does not affect their salvation as far as I know.
No, not at all. But we still have God-given reason to figure out just what we live on without Freemasons at NASA obfuscating that.
Replies in red.
-
I think at 5 miles out, 23 feet would still be too small to notice viewed from 5 ft off the ground, of the curve is already subtle at 1 million feet off the ground.
There should be a drop of 8 inches per mile at 6 feet. Which means the curve should be noticeable at certain distances, but, it actually isn't, as there are now cameras that allow you to see much farther than the purported curvature.
The distance you would have to be away from 2 buildings 20 miles apart would make them too small and short to see any tilt. Maybe if a powerful spotlight was attached to each building on a hazy night, pointed up and perfectly aligned to the buildings, you might be able to see from far away how much the buildings lean apart if any.
There's several experiments where lasers were used at a distance which should have hid them behind a curve, but they hit their target without any issue. They're on bitchute, which I cannot access at the moment. These tests, and those like it, are explained away as a trick of refraction around the curvature, which is nonsense.
This flat earth stuff is new to me, so I have a mind to argue it.
Have flat earthers explained the satellites in the sky I can see at night?
Look into NASA's helium budget, it's outrageous. Some purport that satellites we see are tethered to high-altitude balloons. It's not a definitive explanation, unfortunately.
Either way, one's belief flat or round does not affect their salvation as far as I know.
No, not at all. But we still have God-given reason to figure out just what we live on without Freemasons at NASA obfuscating that.
Replies in red.
About the first point, one or both of us is not understanding something. This 8" per mile or per mile squared cannot be both enough to notice and not enough to notice.
As for the second point, There have been cases of supposed UFO sightings linked to atmospheric conditions causing light to bend such that car headlights miles away can be seen floating over the ground or on the other side of a hill. Air is matter, made up of various forms of matter in varying states. It is known that matter affects light, so it is not unreasonable for a laser to bend around a slight curve caused by varying densities and humidity levels or whatever may cause it.
One thing I do not understand the physics behind, though I think it is explained with math, is how light can interact with the edge of a surface in such a way as to cast light into the shadow that the same light source makes. I will now take a picture of this happening with a laser pointed at the edge of a curve... which is ending up more difficult to capture on camera than I thought. So here's a video which also demonstrates it.
https://youtu.be/TM9alPcOMcU?t=298
-
I think at 5 miles out, 23 feet would still be too small to notice viewed from 5 ft off the ground, of the curve is already subtle at 1 million feet off the ground.
The distance you would have to be away from 2 buildings 20 miles apart would make them too small and short to see any tilt. Maybe if a powerful spotlight was attached to each building on a hazy night, pointed up and perfectly aligned to the buildings, you might be able to see from far away how much the buildings lean apart if any.
This flat earth stuff is new to me, so I have a mind to argue it.
Have flat earthers explained the satellites in the sky I can see at night?
Either way, one's belief flat or round does not affect their salvation as far as I know.
It's good to argue the points because that's how we grapple with the issue.
The curve math proposed by the ball earth scientists has to be dramatic enough to explain how it hides ships traveling away from you. So it's not really gradual at all (according to them anyway).
It's quite a dramatic curve actually and easily visible, but only in that one direction. Moving away from you. Not from side to side. Only when moving away from you. Why??
According to them you can see the effects of the curve while standing on the beach. Any beach. Anywhere on earth. It could be an ocean beach, or a lake side beach. It could be a lake on top of a mountain. It could be a beach facing east, west, north or south.
You can be an adult or a child, short or tall...everyone has watched them boats "go over the curve".
The ship goes "over the curve" on the water and just a few miles out disappears from view. Right?
Well, that's the explanation they give.
So looking at the horizon line on the ocean there should be enough of a curve on the left and on the right to hide 23 foot ships on each side after 6 miles. There should be an incline and a decline.
There isn't. It's perfectly level.
Because a body of water is always level. Everywhere on earth.
Consider how noticeably the Leaning Tower of Pisa leans. One side is 3 feet lower than the other.
(https://i.imgur.com/x6usft2.png)
Looking at the skyline of Phoenix or Las Vegas, the buildings on the ends should be noticeably leaning away from the buildings in the center.
Here is the ball earth chart again:
Distance Height
Miles Feet
--------------------------
1.0 0.67
1.23 1.0
3.0 5.95
3.9 10
6.0 23.8
10 66
12.3 100
20 264
30 595
39 1000
40 1060
50 1650
60 2380
70 3240
87 5000
100 6610
110 8000
120 9520
123 10000
129 11000
135 12000
140 13000
146 14000
148 14496
Viewing 4 miles of skyline on the Las Vegas strip:
(https://i.imgur.com/m2DKnAL.png)
According to the ball earth scientists there should be a 10 foot drop because those buildings are "going over the curve".
Just like the boats that "go over the curve" when travelling away from you the buildings would "go over the curve" and start to lean away from each other.
Just a three foot drop like the Leaning Tower of Pisa would be very noticeable. It's very obvious that it leans away from the other building and it's only a 3 foot incline.
(https://i.imgur.com/qNdn6n0.png)
The buildings on the strip don't lean away from each other because there isn't any curve.
The math is ridiculous. They have to use it because it has to justify why ships disappear "behind the curve". (They don't really)
We've been programmed not to question it.
Only crazy, insane, stupid, "flat earthers" ask such silly, insane questions and you'll become "one of them" because it's an IDENTITY and you have to join their club and everyone will know you are one of them and everyone will all laugh at you like that time in gradeschool and you will be scoffed and mocked and nobody will take you seriously about anything after that because you think you know more than science! lol :)
Why do we have to identify as anything?
Can't we just be people asking questions?
Anyway, look up photos of skylines around the world and see if there is any curve.
Chicago's skyline is 25 miles long. That would mean a curve drop of more than 264 feet! Surely you would see that right?
Can you see the buildings "going over the curve" and leaning over?
(https://i.imgur.com/4AydozI.png)
They stay level just like the water.
-
In your Vegas skyline image, 10 ft is around the size of 1 or maybe even half a pixel on my screen, or the height of one story of the gold buildings which have easy to see windows. Will you really notice 10ft comparing them from so far away when they may not even be built on the same altitude of ground level?
That chicago picture looks to be taken from roughly the same distance, so it also is only about 4 miles wide. But lets imagine a 25 mile separation between buildings. What would it look like? I have a round plastic pretzel bottle/container beside me that is about 6" in diameter I can use to scale the earth down to, so I can better visualize things. With the earth having a supposed 24,901 mile circuмference, 25 miles out of 24,901 makes the skyline 0.001 of the distance around the earth. To scale it down to my container: .001 x 18.84" = 0.01884, which is about 1/64" or the thickness of my thumbnail. If I try to line up two rulers like skyscrapers on the side of my container only 1/64" apart, while trying to make them straight up and down relative to the container, there is a small but very obvious leaning apart of the rulers. A flat earth win?
Not yet. My rulers are not scaled down to building size, right now they would be stretched out like halfway to the moon (not really, but you get my point). So, how big would the buildings look on my container? Assuming they are 50 stories tall, 500ft, lets get their size proportion relative to this 25 mile gap between them. 25 miles is 132,000ft. 500/132,000 = 0.00378. So, I can't imagine what the size of my buildings would look like on my round container because they are smaller than a spec of dust if 25 miles is the same as the thickness of a fingernail.
Lets look at a ruler and and say 25 miles is 25 centimeters. 0.00378 x 25 = .0946, lets round it up to 0.1. So each 500ft tall building is only 1 millimeter tall on the ruler on this scaled down 25 mile skyline. To have the scaled down curve of the earth, the ruler would need the middle raised by a half millimeter. Hardly noticeable. If you have a hard time telling how different the each 1mm tall building is leaning at 25mm or cm apart, it would be quite hard to tell how far the buildings are leaning let alone just seeing them from so far away. The advantage of the ruler perspective is that you can get very close and still see the scaled down buildings, and the scaled down curve of the ground, but in real life you can't get that close of a look.
The reason why you don't notice the curve looking side to side, assuming you can only see 5 miles, looking side to side you now see 10 miles, but in any given direction you are only seeing 5 miles. Once you look the other way, you are still only seeing 5 miles out, but in a different direction. It's like you perspective gets reset each time you change your view. I think this is why even panorama camera images look so flat.
Given how subtle the curve of a ball earth is, I think it is not a good proof one way or the other due to the difficulty of proving it. It seems that to know for sure, one would have to fly into space really far to see for them self.
Only crazy, insane, stupid, "flat earthers" ask such silly, insane questions and you'll become "one of them" because it's an IDENTITY and you have to join their club and everyone will know you are one of them and everyone will all laugh at you like that time in gradeschool and you will be scoffed and mocked and nobody will take you seriously about anything after that because you think you know more than science! lol :)
This doesn't bother me, I only care about truth.
-
In your Vegas skyline image, 10 ft is around the size of 1 or maybe even half a pixel on my screen, or the height of one story of the gold buildings which have easy to see windows. Will you really notice 10ft comparing them from so far away when they may not even be built on the same altitude of ground level?
That chicago picture looks to be taken from roughly the same distance, so it also is only about 4 miles wide. But lets imagine a 25 mile separation between buildings. What would it look like? I have a round plastic pretzel bottle/container beside me that is about 6" in diameter I can use to scale the earth down to, so I can better visualize things. With the earth having a supposed 24,901 mile circuмference, 25 miles out of 24,901 makes the skyline 0.001 of the distance around the earth. To scale it down to my container: .001 x 18.84" = 0.01884, which is about 1/64" or the thickness of my thumbnail. If I try to line up two rulers like skyscrapers on the side of my container only 1/64" apart, while trying to make them straight up and down relative to the container, there is a small but very obvious leaning apart of the rulers. A flat earth win?
Not yet. My rulers are not scaled down to building size, right now they would be stretched out like halfway to the moon (not really, but you get my point). So, how big would the buildings look on my container? Assuming they are 50 stories tall, 500ft, lets get their size proportion relative to this 25 mile gap between them. 25 miles is 132,000ft. 500/132,000 = 0.00378. So, I can't imagine what the size of my buildings would look like on my round container because they are smaller than a spec of dust if 25 miles is the same as the thickness of a fingernail.
Lets look at a ruler and and say 25 miles is 25 centimeters. 0.00378 x 25 = .0946, lets round it up to 0.1. So each 500ft tall building is only 1 millimeter tall on the ruler on this scaled down 25 mile skyline. To have the scaled down curve of the earth, the ruler would need the middle raised by a half millimeter. Hardly noticeable. If you have a hard time telling how different the each 1mm tall building is leaning at 25mm or cm apart, it would be quite hard to tell how far the buildings are leaning let alone just seeing them from so far away. The advantage of the ruler perspective is that you can get very close and still see the scaled down buildings, and the scaled down curve of the ground, but in real life you can't get that close of a look.
The reason why you don't notice the curve looking side to side, assuming you can only see 5 miles, looking side to side you now see 10 miles, but in any given direction you are only seeing 5 miles. Once you look the other way, you are still only seeing 5 miles out, but in a different direction. It's like you perspective gets reset each time you change your view. I think this is why even panorama camera images look so flat.
Given how subtle the curve of a ball earth is, I think it is not a good proof one way or the other due to the difficulty of proving it. It seems that to know for sure, one would have to fly into space really far to see for them self.
This doesn't bother me, I only care about truth.
I think you're making this too complicated. Most people do and they get lost in the weeds but it's quite simple. Common sense really.
When buildings lean away from each other it's very obvious. You notice it right away with your eyes:
(https://i.imgur.com/XmsKpFv.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/h3i5PVe.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/WUMKyFI.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4QmZ3FX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/VKH4sbA.png)
You don't need a laser or special equipment, you can see it quite easily.
The diagram the ball earth scientists give us shows that the lean should be very subtle and yet the math provided shows a hugely dramatic curve that would be easily seen--not subtle at all.
(https://i.imgur.com/6PrxrbY.png)
This diagram makes it look like a very gradual drop. That's what we picture in our minds. It's deceptive.
The actual math is in the chart and tells a story quite different from the diagram.
According to the chart, after 10 miles it's a 66 foot drop! That's a huge curve. The buildings would lean over.
(https://i.imgur.com/FH6Ta65.png)
Here is 10 miles of NY skyline. Do you see a 66 foot drop? According to the chart there should be.
Do buildings lean over even a little bit?
(https://i.imgur.com/Dk8udq6.png)
Even just a three foot drop would make buildings look like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. A 66 foot drop??? That's what the chart says. How can you account for that?
There is no curve. It's a lie.
Here is Phoenix:
(https://i.imgur.com/tIJ4MHx.png)
Nope. There is no curve. No leaning buildings. It's a lie. They lied to you.
You don't need to go out into space. You can easily see it with your eyes.
Can you find and share a skyline that shows how the buildings lean because of the curve? If not, why not? It shouldn't be hard. Surely if an entire boat disappears "behind the curve" a few miles out it should be easy to find a skyline that shows the same kind of dramatic curve right? A large enough curve that could "hide boats" on the sides right?
Such a curve would cause the buildings to lean away from each other unless you keep the buildings congruent like on the side of a hill. If you did that you would have to keep them congruent all the way down the sides of the ball earth. Draw a picture to see what that would look like. It doesn't work. They end up on their sides.
They show the diagram above which makes us picture a gradual curve on a large ball. That's the picture we already have in our minds. We readily accept it because we have been programmed to visualize the earth like that since birth. "Yes, that is what earth looks like," we think.
But they also give us the math in the chart which supports the lie that ships "go over the curve" a few miles out.
They have to keep us believing both lies.
Both the diagram and the math in the chart are obvious lies which you can see with your eyes simply by looking at the skylines around the world which do not have a curve anything like what they are purporting.
You don't need fancy equipment or lasers. You can see it plainly with your own eyes.
Here is more on how absurd the curve math is!
9min 21sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guNKGvY5wDk&t=243s
-
I must be a sucker for punishment for even looking at these threads, but in faint hope someone will think a bit more critically than looking at the maths like so much alphabet soup:
GIven the 10-mile skyline vs. 66 feet of curvature is right, so what does that "actually" look like? Using the simplest and coarsest math, that curvature closely (within 2%) approximates a right triangle of SA 52,800ft (10 miles) by 66ft SO; resulting in an angle of deviation between 2 buildings at either end of your 10 miles, of 0.07 degrees (that's zero point zero 7). Or, each building skews 0.035 degrees outward using the image center as a reference (The way our vision processes such things). Sorry your eyes ain't good enough to perceive that in any panoramic view.
Obviously, 1/14 degree of actual curvature is a bit more subtle than the cartoon skyline "proof" above.
Another fun fact: When you capture an image to a finite point (lens), there's radial distortion unless the lens system is very carefully selected for the distance/angles involved. Depending on the skyline position in the frame, that distortion often amounts to more than this fraction of a degree, so if you have enough res in the image + a huge monitor and a ruler, you may just find them skewing inward..
Beware sophists fiddling with stock images...
-
What does 0.07 degrees look like? Get an analog clock, and find the 1 minute mark. That's 6 degrees off vertical. Now slice that minute into 85 equal portions, and the very first of those is 0.07 degrees. Anyone can see that angle, it's like the Tower of Pisa!
::)
-
I must be a sucker for punishment for even looking at these threads, but in faint hope someone will think a bit more critically than looking at the maths like so much alphabet soup:
GIven the 10-mile skyline vs. 66 feet of curvature is right, so what does that "actually" look like? Using the simplest and coarsest math, that curvature closely (within 2%) approximates a right triangle of SA 52,800ft (10 miles) by 66ft SO; resulting in an angle of deviation between 2 buildings at either end of your 10 miles, of 0.07 degrees (that's zero point zero 7). Or, each building skews 0.035 degrees outward using the image center as a reference (The way our vision processes such things). Sorry your eyes ain't good enough to perceive that in any panoramic view.
Obviously, 1/14 degree of actual curvature is a bit more subtle than the cartoon skyline "proof" above.
Another fun fact: When you capture an image to a finite point (lens), there's radial distortion unless the lens system is very carefully selected for the distance/angles involved. Depending on the skyline position in the frame, that distortion often amounts to more than this fraction of a degree, so if you have enough res in the image + a huge monitor and a ruler, you may just find them skewing inward..
Beware sophists fiddling with stock images...
So you can't see the variance of the buildings since it's so subtle? Then how do you account for the curve hiding large ships behind it after a few miles? You can't have it both ways.
The chart says a 66 foot DROP after 10 miles.
If a 23 foot boat can "hide behind the curve" after 6 miles that indicates a significate DROP causing a barrier to ones vision as if it's behind a hill.
Do you see that DROP in the skyline?
Here are some pilots and engineers explaining how ridiculous the curve math is. One explains that after only 100 miles you have a 6669 foot DROP which would require nose down. Planes fly straight and level. There is no DROP like that. It's ridiculous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBAAOIgt3JE
-
Oh well, I guess I will just have to inform Sungenis that the "globe lie" his book is promoting is the same lie which in your words above has "contributed to the Great Apostasy and the destruction of Christendom." I hope he survives the shock.
What a burden! Who gives a shit what Dumb-Genis thinks? Anyone? Bueller? :sleep: Thought so...
-
So you can't see the variance of the buildings since it's so subtle? Then how do you account for the curve hiding large ships behind it after a few miles? You can't have it both ways.
The chart says a 66 foot DROP after 10 miles.
If a 23 foot boat can "hide behind the curve" after 6 miles that indicates a significate DROP causing a barrier to ones vision as if it's behind a hill.
Do you see that DROP in the skyline?
Here are some pilots and engineers explaining how ridiculous the curve math is. One explains that after only 100 miles you have a 6669 foot DROP which would require nose down. Planes fly straight and level. There is no DROP like that. It's ridiculous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBAAOIgt3JE
I see where you are getting these arguments now. I only made it through 2/3 of the video. They make most, but not all of it, sound quite convincing during the introduction. Being open minded, I thought I might have to change my belief by the end, but after the introduction it became a bunch of weak arguments or basically just opinions. Aside from the opinions, the arguments are weak because they neglect known (or at least argued truths presented by the ball earth scientists) truths about the physics involved with a globe earth and technology interacting with nature around it. A submarine does not need to pitch down for the same reason an airplane does not need to. It's because of the variable buoyancy and density of the fluid they operate in, and the fact that gravity is pulling toward a central point which is straight down at any given point. The air as a whole is moving with the ground, but variations in wind speed are possible due to variable climates caused by landscape, altitude, cloud cover, and the energy input from the sun. Things like the earth spinning at 600mph or whatever concerns one guy because he has an erroneous mental image of the physics involved. Not everyone has very good skills for imagining things, and even then, understanding is personal and subjective. The numbers that happen to have three 6's in a row are common because it is a number, relatively small, and inevitably reached when counting. It is also common in calculations involving decimals because it resembles 2/3, which is a common fraction. Any time you have 2/3 of 1 with however many zeros, you get a bunch of 6's. Then there's the guy who said he could see a mast 30 miles out or whatever from his periscope. How tall is a ship? Plenty tall. And radars are not laser beams. They are a wide angle beam for scanning a lot of sky, or they would be useless for finding stuff. Lasers are for pointing stuff out, wide angle search lights are for finding stuff. So, a radar 50ft up on a ship could scan down over the horizon a ways, and definitely quite far at high altitudes. I see it all the time, when watching severe weather on the news weather radar on TV, poor storm cell detail at long distances because the radar beam can't see down low at long distances, only what is up high, which is less defined wind and rain details. Tracking tornadoes is easy and precise until around 40-50 miles out, and I think those radars reach to 100 or maybe 150 miles.
-
Given how subtle the curve of a ball earth is, I think it is not a good proof one way or the other due to the difficulty of proving it. It seems that to know for sure, one would have to fly into space really far to see for them self.
I presume you believe MANY have done just that. Surely their proof would be widely available and incontrovertible? Where is it?
Nowhere.
"One...them...self"...what a grammatical shit-show. Anyway, that is clearly not your strength.
-
I see where you are getting these arguments now. I only made it through 2/3 of the video. They make most, but not all of it, sound quite convincing during the introduction. Being open minded, I thought I might have to change my belief by the end, but after the introduction it became a bunch of weak arguments or basically just opinions. Aside from the opinions, the arguments are weak because they neglect known (or at least argued truths presented by the ball earth scientists) truths about the physics involved with a globe earth and technology interacting with nature around it. A submarine does not need to pitch down for the same reason an airplane does not need to. It's because of the variable buoyancy and density of the fluid they operate in, and the fact that gravity is pulling toward a central point which is straight down at any given point. The air as a whole is moving with the ground, but variations in wind speed are possible due to variable climates caused by landscape, altitude, cloud cover, and the energy input from the sun. Things like the earth spinning at 600mph or whatever concerns one guy because he has an erroneous mental image of the physics involved. Not everyone has very good skills for imagining things, and even then, understanding is personal and subjective. The numbers that happen to have three 6's in a row are common because it is a number, relatively small, and inevitably reached when counting. It is also common in calculations involving decimals because it resembles 2/3, which is a common fraction. Any time you have 2/3 of 1 with however many zeros, you get a bunch of 6's. Then there's the guy who said he could see a mast 30 miles out or whatever from his periscope. How tall is a ship? Plenty tall. And radars are not laser beams. They are a wide angle beam for scanning a lot of sky, or they would be useless for finding stuff. Lasers are for pointing stuff out, wide angle search lights are for finding stuff. So, a radar 50ft up on a ship could scan down over the horizon a ways, and definitely quite far at high altitudes. I see it all the time, when watching severe weather on the news weather radar on TV, poor storm cell detail at long distances because the radar beam can't see down low at long distances, only what is up high, which is less defined wind and rain details. Tracking tornadoes is easy and precise until around 40-50 miles out, and I think those radars reach to 100 or maybe 150 miles.
Yeah, it can get complicated. That's totally understandable.
I think you are correct that not everyone has good skills at imagining things.
Can you help me imagine the 66 foot drop after 10 miles of skyline in Phoenix or New York?
I can't see it. Can you?
Maybe you could draw a picture?
-
I presume you believe MANY have done just that. Surely their proof would be widely available and incontrovertible? Where is it?
Nowhere.
"One...them...self"...what a grammatical shit-show. Anyway, that is clearly not your strength.
No need to be rude. People need to sort through things. That's smart.
-
No need to be rude. People need to sort through things. That's smart.
Facts aren't rude. Good grammar is also smart.
-
I presume you believe MANY have done just that. Surely their proof would be widely available and incontrovertible? Where is it?
Nowhere.
There is a science totally ignored by flat-earthers, and that is geodesy, Earth measurement on a large scale.
The period from Eratosthenes to Jean Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy.
This science began with Eratosthenes (l. c. 276-195 BC), a Greek astronomer, geographer, mathematician, and poet best known for being the first to calculate the circuмference of the earth.
Jean Picard ( 1620-1682) was a French astronomer and priest born in La Flèche, where he studied at the Jesuit Collège Royal Henry-Le-Grand. He is principally notable for his accurate measure of the size of the Earth, based on a careful survey of one degree of latitude along the Paris Meridian.
As I said before, Domenico Cassini measured the Earth as egg shaped to falsify Newton's evolved bulging heliocentric Earth.
-
There is a science totally ignored by flat-earthers, and that is geodesy, Earth measurement on a large scale.
The period from Eratosthenes to Jean Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy.
This science began with Eratosthenes (l. c. 276-195 BC), a Greek astronomer, geographer, mathematician, and poet best known for being the first to calculate the circuмference of the earth.
Jean Picard ( 1620-1682) was a French astronomer and priest born in La Flèche, where he studied at the Jesuit Collège Royal Henry-Le-Grand. He is principally notable for his accurate measure of the size of the Earth, based on a careful survey of one degree of latitude along the Paris Meridian.
As I said before, Domenico Cassini measured the Earth as egg shaped to falsify Newton's evolved bulging heliocentric Earth.
Flat earthers have not ignored geodesy. https://www.bitchute.com/video/g1QZEJ3fXXe3/ But ball earthers have ignored the other measurements provided by science. "In their quest for victory [ball earthers] have jettisoned all reason."
-
Eratosthenes was sheer nonsense.
-
Yeah, it can get complicated. That's totally understandable.
I think you are correct that not everyone has good skills at imagining things.
Can you help me imagine the 66 foot drop after 10 miles of skyline in Phoenix or New York?
I can't see it. Can you?
Maybe you could draw a picture?
I will think about it when I have time. I think an animation would be a better demonstration than a drawing, but I can't make an animation.
-
Flat earthers have not ignored geodesy. https://www.bitchute.com/video/g1QZEJ3fXXe3/ But ball earthers have ignored the other measurements provided by science. "In their quest for victory [ball earthers] have jettisoned all reason."
Now what this character in your video is doing is trying to convince himself and flat-Earthers that this science of geodesy is bull. He asserts that geologists for over 300 years didn't know what they were doing was illusionary. At 38 minutes he tries to make a laugh at the way this science works. You see some of us know the Earth has seas, land and mountains. In other words the surface is not even. But we know the seas are even and if we use the seas as the standard surface measurement the science can work out more accurately the distance between areas and work out its bend. This of course it too complicated to your man to understand.
This science was used by Domenico Cassini to falsify Newton's evolved bulging Earth. Cassini remember was the first astronomer to work out the distance of the sun from the Earth. Cassini’s talent as a surveyor was also well known. In 1657 he was asked by none other than Pope Alexander VII to resolve a dispute regarding the flow of the River Reno between Bologna and Ferrara that was causing flooding. For the next seven years Cassini was occupied with similar work around the Papal States. Cassini's Geodesy is but an extension of his surveying.
It is possible to determine the shape of the Earth by measuring the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude differences at two places along the meridian (the ellipse passing through the Poles) at different latitudes, which means at different distances from the Equator.’ With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini (Cassini II) and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy.
The results, published by Cassini II in 1720, showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 meters shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the Earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped rather than orange shaped.
Flatearthism has no doubt many good arguments to explain how it could work. But it also depends on there being a long conspiracy to hide this from the world, with many thousands of people all involved in making sure this 'secret' never came out. It denies all space photos or images of a curve by satellites we can all see moving above the Earth, allowing us the E-mail and phone each other from one part of the Earth to another. Best of all however, is that the biggest problem for flatearthers is to keep the edge of their Earth out of sight from anybody when all they need to do to convince all that the Earth is indeed flat by flying a plane, a spaceship, a balloon or a drone over the edge of their flat Earth taking videos or photos of it. Now that should convince everybody. So, who don't they do that? I tell you I for one would have to accept that as the only real proof for a flat Earth.
-
Now what this character in your video is doing is trying to convince himself and flat-Earthers that this science of geodesy is bull. He asserts that geologists for over 300 years didn't know what they were doing was illusionary. At 38 minutes he tries to make a laugh at the way this science works. You see some of us know the Earth has seas, land and mountains. In other words the surface is not even. But we know the seas are even and if we use the seas as the standard surface measurement the science can work out more accurately the distance between areas and work out its bend. This of course it too complicated to your man to understand.
This science was used by Domenico Cassini to falsify Newton's evolved bulging Earth. Cassini remember was the first astronomer to work out the distance of the sun from the Earth. Cassini’s talent as a surveyor was also well known. In 1657 he was asked by none other than Pope Alexander VII to resolve a dispute regarding the flow of the River Reno between Bologna and Ferrara that was causing flooding. For the next seven years Cassini was occupied with similar work around the Papal States. Cassini's Geodesy is but an extension of his surveying.
It is possible to determine the shape of the Earth by measuring the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude differences at two places along the meridian (the ellipse passing through the Poles) at different latitudes, which means at different distances from the Equator.’ With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini (Cassini II) and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy.
Ok, I have to stop you here and address just how badly this video destroyed so-called geodesy. Geodesic science admits, readily, that they form their model after creating a model for them to measure their model from. Seriously? That means it isn't a measurement of the real world, but a measurement from a model they created, after they assume it is a globe. Yep, that's pretty down and dirty. It's called begging the question. Even if you say they measure "the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude difference at two places along the meridian"...What? A meridian they created but never actually measured? They admit they don't measure anything real but all of it is assumed before they measure. Why? Because they can't measure an arc that doesn't exist. It's a scam. Earth isn't a ball. All the formulas are based on presumption. Talk about cheating. Later, the flat earthers literally destroy every other fake narrative in relation to this crazy scheme with all sorts of great arguments. Sorry Cassini, this is truly embarrassing for anyone who takes stock in this chimera.
-
That reminds me of the circular logic between the geological column and fossil records. They date fossils based on the geological column, and they date the geological column from the fossils in it.
-
That reminds me of the circular logic between the geological column and fossil records. They date fossils based on the geological column, and they date the geological column from the fossils in it.
Oh wow. Sounds reasonable, if you're a fan of t-rex museums. In another way, it kind of reminds me of the videos from the 60s that fooled everyone (at the time) into thinking we went to the moon. When someone outs them, they just double down and employ smoke for cover.
-
This is a picture I took. I have no idea what it means to the flat earth model. Maybe it fits perfectly, maybe you think it's fake? The picture is a little off center to the east from north.
-
This is a picture I took. I have no idea what it means to the flat earth model. Maybe it fits perfectly, maybe you think it's fake? The picture is a little off center to the east from north.
Beautiful time lapse photo of the stars rotating above in the firmament over the flat earth. It is definitely not fake.
-
Could a similar picture be taken in south america facing south?
-
Could a similar picture be taken in south america facing south?
Why not?
-
I figured there may be only one axis in the sky that the heavens rotate about as far as I understand the flat earth model.
-
I figured there may be only one axis in the sky that the heavens rotate about as far as I understand the flat earth model.
There is only one axis point around which the stars travel, that is, the North Star, Polaris. But that doesn't mean a photo can't be taken of the sky showing the phenomenon. The center of rotation changes depending on the position of the observer on the flat earth, but that doesn't mean the stars disappear or that the rotation doesn't occur. This photo shows it perfectly.
-
In theory, such a picture could not be taken of an axis when facing south on a flat earth, but should when taken in the southern hemisphere on a ball earth, right?
And, I do not know if polaris is even visible from far south of the equator, but it should be on a flat earth.
-
In theory, such a picture could not be taken of an axis when facing south on a flat earth, but should when taken in the southern hemisphere on a ball earth, right?
The further south you go, the lower in the horizon that the point of axis will be. But that reality is a given on a flat earth. The photo wasn't taken all that far south. You'd have to go REALLY far south to interrupt the view of the axis of rotation around the North Star. I wonder what that photo would look like. Not saying it doesn't exist, just wondering. To say it can't exist if earth is flat is not reality. If the rotation becomes invisible at a lower vantage point, from a greater distance, doesn't mean earth isn't flat. It just means the rotation around that point isn't detectible in the sky because the axis is so low it becomes undetectable from the position from which it is taken.
-
In theory, such a picture could not be taken of an axis when facing south on a flat earth, but should when taken in the southern hemisphere on a ball earth, right?
And, I do not know if polaris is even visible from far south of the equator, but it should be on a flat earth.
6min 47sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zMCL7aMvP19Z/
2min 56 sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Nivloo0EAgc/
6min 47sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QbEJyrXp7mS8/
-
Ok, I have to stop you here and address just how badly this video destroyed so-called geodesy. Geodesic science admits, readily, that they form their model after creating a model for them to measure their model from. Seriously? That means it isn't a measurement of the real world, but a measurement from a model they created, after they assume it is a globe. Yep, that's pretty down and dirty. It's called begging the question. Even if you say they measure "the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude difference at two places along the meridian"...What? A meridian they created but never actually measured? They admit they don't measure anything real but all of it is assumed before they measure. Why? Because they can't measure an arc that doesn't exist. It's a scam. Earth isn't a ball. All the formulas are based on presumption. Talk about cheating. Later, the flat earthers literally destroy every other fake narrative in relation to this crazy scheme with all sorts of great arguments. Sorry Cassini, this is truly embarrassing for anyone who takes stock in this chimera.
Ladislaus:
That reminds me of the circular logic between the geological column and fossil records. They date fossils based on the geological column, and they date the geological column from the fossils in it.
O.K., I see what you mean, the assumption being that the Earth is a globe at the time. But isn't that similar to all the flat-earth 'sciences,' the assumption that the Earth is flat.
So then, let us go back to catholic flatearthers' assumption that the Bible reveals the Earth is flat, a far more important aspect of the debate than comparing astronomical assumptions. First a little history:
Although there were a few flat-earthers, by the time of Eratosthenes (300BC), followed by Strabo (300BC), Crates (200BC), and Ptolemy (1AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted among the Greeks and Romans. Nor did this understanding change with the advent of Christianity. A few, at least two, and at most five early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistaking passages such as Ps.104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.’ -Jeffrey Russell: summary of Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1997)
“All persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the Earth was round. The Venerable Bede (673-735AD) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (700-784AD), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (1195-1256). It informed that not only the Earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
Note the statue of the Child of Prague holding a global Earth with the Cross on top of it. Globus Crucriger has long represented the Christian God’s reign over the Earth. Further devotion to the image began in 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara took the statue of infant Jesus to Czechoslovakia from Spain. It is now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague, an object of veneration.’
Then there is the Miraculous Medal. Its design was given to St Catherine Labouré by the Blessed Virgin Mary in Rue du Bac Paris in 1830. In her medal the Virgin stands upon Satan the snake atop a section of a globe, representing the entire world. Now our world is centred on the Earth, a globe from which Our Lady ascended into heaven and on which Mary will crush the head of the snake. Then there is the global moon, which is also associated with the Virgin Mary, reflecting as it does the light of the sun, just as Mary reflects the light of her Son on those Christians with faith.
-
Following on from my last post, the 'Catholic' aspect of the flatearthers, let me show everybody what must be eliminated as Catholic 'fiction.'
Our choice of reading for this purpose comes from the private revelations to Sister Mary of Jesus, known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665), a nun known to have bilocated over 500 times to America without leaving her convent in Spain. The following are insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial. Her three-volume work was entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ also known as ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These revelations to Venerable Maria, whose body now lies miraculously incorrupt in a Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have withstood many years of investigation and misinterpretation, placed on the Index in 1681 and lifted 3 months later before receiving approbations from popes as a way to gain a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith in line with traditional Church teaching. Here is a passage most relevant to the shape of the Earth;
'God created the Earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.--- Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God.’
-
Following on from my last post, the 'Catholic' aspect of the flatearthers, let me show everybody what must be eliminated as Catholic 'fiction.'
Our choice of reading for this purpose comes from the private revelations to Sister Mary of Jesus, known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665), a nun known to have bilocated over 500 times to America without leaving her convent in Spain. The following are insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial. Her three-volume work was entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ also known as ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These revelations to Venerable Maria, whose body now lies miraculously incorrupt in a Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have withstood many years of investigation and misinterpretation, placed on the Index in 1681 and lifted 3 months later before receiving approbations from popes as a way to gain a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith in line with traditional Church teaching. Here is a passage most relevant to the shape of the Earth;
'God created the Earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.--- Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God.’
We've covered this before in other threads, maybe you didn't see it.
There was an official condemnation of the Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda for these reasons
1. It violated the decree of Pope Urban VIII (March 13, 1625)
2. It narrated apocryphal stories.
3. It presented opinions of the Duns Scotus theological school as divine revelation.
4. Mary of Agreda pictured the earth in the form of an egg, i.e. that the earth has a spherical shape.
5. It exaggerated the cult of Our Lady to the extent of obscuring the great Mystery of the Incarnation.
152 Masters of the Sorbonne discussed the Mystical City on thirty-two sessions, July 2-14, 1696. 102 of the 152 Masters voted against the book. At all events, Blessed Innocent signed the condemnation on June 26, 1681.
Now, this shows a couple of things. Number 1, how seriously dangerous the head of the Church and the bishops considered the spherical earth. They certainly did not agree. But secondly, the pope doesn't seem aware that the snow globe world consistent with flat earth was probably what Agreda was describing. The way her description was worded suggested the earth itself was a sphere but maybe she wasn't trying to say that. In any event, they banned the book. As stated before, flat earthers see all of creation as a globe: with hell at the bottom, in the belly of the snow globe. Flat earth in the middle. And heaven makes up the top portion of the "globe". This exact description is historically preserved in the traditions of Catholic culture as the "globus cruciger"*. The Church is proven to be in defense of the flat earth against the pagan notion of spherical earth, even to the point of condemning Agreda's book.
From wiki, on the historic globus cruciger
*A possible non-literary but graphic indication that people in the Middle Ages believed that the Earth (or perhaps the world) was a sphere is the use of the orb (globus cruciger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger)) in the regalia of many kingdoms and of the Holy Roman Empire. It is attested from the time of the Christian late-Roman emperor Theodosius II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_II) (423) throughout the Middle Ages; the Reichsapfel was used in 1191 at the coronation of emperor Henry VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor). However the word 'orbis' means 'circle' and there is no record of a globe as a representation of the Earth since ancient times in the west till that of Martin Behaim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim) in 1492. Additionally it could well be a representation of the entire 'world' or cosmos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos).
-
Following on from my last post, the 'Catholic' aspect of the flatearthers, let me show everybody what must be eliminated as Catholic 'fiction.'
Our choice of reading for this purpose comes from the private revelations to Sister Mary of Jesus, known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665), a nun known to have bilocated over 500 times to America without leaving her convent in Spain. The following are insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial. Her three-volume work was entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ also known as ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These revelations to Venerable Maria, whose body now lies miraculously incorrupt in a Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have withstood many years of investigation and misinterpretation, placed on the Index in 1681 and lifted 3 months later before receiving approbations from popes as a way to gain a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith in line with traditional Church teaching. Here is a passage most relevant to the shape of the Earth;
'God created the Earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.--- Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God.’
Thank you very much cassini for this very enlightening and tradition affirming passage from the monumental and (contrary to some even to this day misconceptions) fully Church approved work by Venerable Mary of Agreda whose body still rests beautifully incorrupt. The exact passage is found in Paragraph #82 of Chapter 7 of Book 1 of Volume 1 which can be examined at the following hyperlink: http://www.neemcog.com/index_files/ConceptionChVII_nee.pdf (http://www.neemcog.com/index_files/ConceptionChVII_nee.pdf)
-
Thank you very much cassini for this very enlightening and tradition affirming passage from the monumental and (contrary to some even to this day misconceptions) fully Church approved work by Venerable Mary of Agreda whose body still rests beautifully incorrupt. The exact passage is found in Paragraph #82 of Chapter 7 of Book 1 of Volume 1 which can be examined at the following hyperlink: http://www.neemcog.com/index_files/ConceptionChVII_nee.pdf (http://www.neemcog.com/index_files/ConceptionChVII_nee.pdf)
That the works of Agreda were once condemned by the pope along with the majority of the bishops is a fact. At the time, they recognized in Agreda's work that which appeared to be a problem in describing the earth as a globe. The condemnation proves beyond all doubt that the Church under Innocent did not approve of the pagan notion of spherical earth. Whatever happened since is up for speculation as the truth about flat earth has become bogged down in false notions about it being a sphere. Not to mention that Agreda's work has the ability to coincide with the globus cruciger and the Catholic view of the flat earth. Nothing in the docuмent above is anathema to flat earthers nor does it teach that the earth is a globe.
-
We've covered this before in other threads, maybe you didn't see it.
There was an official condemnation of the Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda for these reasons
1. It violated the decree of Pope Urban VIII (March 13, 1625)
2. It narrated apocryphal stories.
3. It presented opinions of the Duns Scotus theological school as divine revelation.
4. Mary of Agreda pictured the earth in the form of an egg, i.e. that the earth has a spherical shape.
5. It exaggerated the cult of Our Lady to the extent of obscuring the great Mystery of the Incarnation.
152 Masters of the Sorbonne discussed the Mystical City on thirty-two sessions, July 2-14, 1696. 102 of the 152 Masters voted against the book. At all events, Blessed Innocent signed the condemnation on June 26, 1681.
Now, this shows a couple of things. Number 1, how seriously dangerous the head of the Church and the bishops considered the spherical earth. They certainly did not agree. But secondly, the pope doesn't seem aware that the snow globe world consistent with flat earth was probably what Agreda was describing. The way her description was worded suggested the earth itself was a sphere but maybe she wasn't trying to say that. In any event, they banned the book. As stated before, flat earthers see all of creation as a globe: with hell at the bottom, in the belly of the snow globe. Flat earth in the middle. And heaven makes up the top portion of the "globe". This exact description is historically preserved in the traditions of Catholic culture as the "globus cruciger"*. The Church is proven to be in defense of the flat earth against the pagan notion of spherical earth, even to the point of condemning Agreda's book.
From wiki, on the historic globus cruciger
*A possible non-literary but graphic indication that people in the Middle Ages believed that the Earth (or perhaps the world) was a sphere is the use of the orb (globus cruciger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger)) in the regalia of many kingdoms and of the Holy Roman Empire. It is attested from the time of the Christian late-Roman emperor Theodosius II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_II) (423) throughout the Middle Ages; the Reichsapfel was used in 1191 at the coronation of emperor Henry VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor). However the word 'orbis' means 'circle' and there is no record of a globe as a representation of the Earth since ancient times in the west till that of Martin Behaim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim) in 1492. Additionally it could well be a representation of the entire 'world' or cosmos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos).
Please be advised of the following official letter that was sent to Miss Mary Frances Lester, Editor of Tan Books on February 7, 1998 by Archbishop (later Cardinal) Tarciscio Bertone in his capacity as Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A copy of this letter can be found on p. XX of Volume 1 of The Mystical City of God published by TAN Books. The exact verbatim text of this letter is seen below between the asterisks.
*************************************************************************************************************
February 7, 1998
Dear Miss Lester:
This Congregation writes in reply to your fax message of October 29, 1997, in which you asked if there are currently any restrictions on keeping or reading The Mystical City of God by Venerable Maria of Agreda.
Please be assured that at the present time there is no condemnations or restrictions issued by ecclesiastical authorities with regard to this book.
With kind regards and prayerful best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ
[Signed Tarciscio Bertone]
*************************************************************************************************************
-
Please be advised of the following official letter that was sent to Miss Mary Frances Lester, Editor of Tan Books on February 7, 1998 by Archbishop (later Cardinal) Tarciscio Bertone in his capacity as Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A copy of this letter can be found on p. XX of Volume 1 of The Mystical City of God published by TAN Books. The exact verbatim text of this letter is seen below between the asterisks.
*************************************************************************************************************
February 7, 1998
Dear Miss Lester:
This Congregation writes in reply to your fax message of October 29, 1997, in which you asked if there are currently any restrictions on keeping or reading The Mystical City of God by Venerable Maria of Agreda.
Please be assured that at the present time there is no condemnations or restrictions issued by ecclesiastical authorities with regard to this book.
With kind regards and prayerful best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ
[Signed Tarciscio Bertone]
*************************************************************************************************************
Yuk, Bertone. Sorry, I had to. But still, thank you for the information.
-
Please be advised of the following official letter that was sent to Miss Mary Frances Lester, Editor of Tan Books on February 7, 1998 by Archbishop (later Cardinal) Tarciscio Bertone in his capacity as Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A copy of this letter can be found on p. XX of Volume 1 of The Mystical City of God published by TAN Books. The exact verbatim text of this letter is seen below between the asterisks.
*************************************************************************************************************
February 7, 1998
Dear Miss Lester:
This Congregation writes in reply to your fax message of October 29, 1997, in which you asked if there are currently any restrictions on keeping or reading The Mystical City of God by Venerable Maria of Agreda.
Please be assured that at the present time there is no condemnations or restrictions issued by ecclesiastical authorities with regard to this book.
With kind regards and prayerful best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ
[Signed Tarciscio Bertone]
*************************************************************************************************************
Pffft. Bertone is one of the worst out there, and he would say there are no restrictions on the works of Chardin or even Anton LaVey.
-
We've covered this before in other threads, maybe you didn't see it.
There was an official condemnation of the Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda for these reasons
1. It violated the decree of Pope Urban VIII (March 13, 1625)
2. It narrated apocryphal stories.
3. It presented opinions of the Duns Scotus theological school as divine revelation.
4. Mary of Agreda pictured the earth in the form of an egg, i.e. that the earth has a spherical shape.
5. It exaggerated the cult of Our Lady to the extent of obscuring the great Mystery of the Incarnation.
152 Masters of the Sorbonne discussed the Mystical City on thirty-two sessions, July 2-14, 1696. 102 of the 152 Masters voted against the book. At all events, Blessed Innocent signed the condemnation on June 26, 1681.
Now, this shows a couple of things. Number 1, how seriously dangerous the head of the Church and the bishops considered the spherical earth. They certainly did not agree. But secondly, the pope doesn't seem aware that the snow globe world consistent with flat earth was probably what Agreda was describing. The way her description was worded suggested the earth itself was a sphere but maybe she wasn't trying to say that. In any event, they banned the book. As stated before, flat earthers see all of creation as a globe: with hell at the bottom, in the belly of the snow globe. Flat earth in the middle. And heaven makes up the top portion of the "globe". This exact description is historically preserved in the traditions of Catholic culture as the "globus cruciger"*. The Church is proven to be in defense of the flat earth against the pagan notion of spherical earth, even to the point of condemning Agreda's book.
From wiki, on the historic globus cruciger
*A possible non-literary but graphic indication that people in the Middle Ages believed that the Earth (or perhaps the world) was a sphere is the use of the orb (globus cruciger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger)) in the regalia of many kingdoms and of the Holy Roman Empire. It is attested from the time of the Christian late-Roman emperor Theodosius II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_II) (423) throughout the Middle Ages; the Reichsapfel was used in 1191 at the coronation of emperor Henry VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor). However the word 'orbis' means 'circle' and there is no record of a globe as a representation of the Earth since ancient times in the west till that of Martin Behaim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim) in 1492. Additionally it could well be a representation of the entire 'world' or cosmos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos).
O.K., Tradman, here is another Saint you can promote as a fraud because she too described the Earth as a globe and not flat.
Saint Hildegard of Bingen (1096 to 1180) a saint who was made a Doctor of the Church in 2012. Confined to her bed as a child, Hildegard received visions that continued throughout her life. When she was seven her parents sent her off to a religious life in what became a small Benedictine convent within which she eventually became its head.
‘Hildegard’s life changed radically when she was forty-two. She had the most powerful vision yet, of inspiration, of understanding, an infusion of knowledge about the meaning of Scripture and the whole content of the faith. She also received the command to write down what she learned, which she did for the next thirty years. Her first and greatest work, Scivias, tells in three books of God and all of his creation, of redemption, the Church, and the devil, and finally about the whole history of salvation. First the abbot read portions of it, then the archbishop of Mainz, then St. Bernard of Clairvaux and then Pope Eugenius (1145-1153), who read her writings out loud himself to a synod held in the German city of Trier. The word was out. A true prophetess lived on the Rhine. Hildegard’s solitude, as limited as it had been, was over. --- Crisis Magazine, Sept. 9th, 2012.
‘In Hildegard’s universe, the Earth was the centre, and spherical, around which were arranged concentric shells or zones. The inner zones are spherical, the outer oval or egg-shaped, and the outermost so formed as to suggest the acuмinated sphere that symbolises the fifth element, quintessence of the other four. This point that tapers into outer space is in the East, which is the top of the diagram. One of her drawings, says Singer, shows that she believed the antipodeans surface of the Earth to be uninhabitable, “since it is either beneath the ocean, or in the mouth of the Dragon.” In the interior of the Earth, she believed, are two vast spaces shaped like truncated cones, where punishment was endured, and from whence great evil came forth.’
--- https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe29.htm
I found this description of the Earth very interesting. As I said before, it was Isaac Newton who proposed a bulging Earth to go along with his solar-system, a bulge depicted in astronomy books looking like a rugby ball, the shape your man on the video rightly laughed at. Domenico Cassini knew that was an invention and went out and measured the Earth as egg shaped. The truth will out says the Bible.
Finally, how many saints have been inspired to describe a flat Earth in their 'sacred texts?'
-
One of her drawings, says Singer, shows that she believed the antipodeans surface of the Earth to be uninhabitable, “since it is either beneath the ocean, or in the mouth of the Dragon.”
Did you even bother to read your own post? See above. She said that the underside of the earth is beneath the ocean or near the mouth of the dragon (aka SHEOL) ... as per below.
All FEs assert is that only the flat upper surface of the earth is inhabited. We don't know what lies beneath the inhabited surface, but the description above looks more like (below) this than the stupid globe (in which you assert the antipodeans certainly live).
(https://pursuingveritasdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/ancient-hebrew-view-of-universe.png?w=640)
-
and there is no record of a globe as a representation of the Earth since ancient times in the west till that of Martin Behaim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim) in 1492.
The lack of a physical globe is kind of irrelevant when we have countless drawings of it and quotes expressing their belief in it.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Do-naimX4AAldJJ?format=jpg&name=small)
Bishop Isidore of Sevilla (560–636):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Diagrammatic_T-O_world_map_-_12th_century.jpg)
Illustration of the spherical Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth) in a 14th-century copy of L'Image du monde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautier_de_Metz) (c. 1246)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Gossuin_de_Metz_-_L%27image_du_monde_-_BNF_Fr._574_fo42_-_miniature.jpg)
12th-century depiction of a spherical Earth with the four seasons (book Liber Divinorum Operum by St. Hildegard of Bingen)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Hildegard_von_Bingen-_%27Werk_Gottes%27%2C_12._Jh..jpg/330px-Hildegard_von_Bingen-_%27Werk_Gottes%27%2C_12._Jh..jpg)
Meanwhile, is there anyone from this period who described a flat Earth?
-
Among the Church Fathers, even those who believed the earth was spherical, most did not believe that the antipodes were inhabitable.
-
O.K., Tradman, here is another Saint you can promote as a fraud because she too described the Earth as a globe and not flat.
Saint Hildegard of Bingen (1096 to 1180) a saint who was made a Doctor of the Church in 2012. Confined to her bed as a child, Hildegard received visions that continued throughout her life. When she was seven her parents sent her off to a religious life in what became a small Benedictine convent within which she eventually became its head.
‘Hildegard’s life changed radically when she was forty-two. She had the most powerful vision yet, of inspiration, of understanding, an infusion of knowledge about the meaning of Scripture and the whole content of the faith. She also received the command to write down what she learned, which she did for the next thirty years. Her first and greatest work, Scivias, tells in three books of God and all of his creation, of redemption, the Church, and the devil, and finally about the whole history of salvation. First the abbot read portions of it, then the archbishop of Mainz, then St. Bernard of Clairvaux and then Pope Eugenius (1145-1153), who read her writings out loud himself to a synod held in the German city of Trier. The word was out. A true prophetess lived on the Rhine. Hildegard’s solitude, as limited as it had been, was over. --- Crisis Magazine, Sept. 9th, 2012.
‘In Hildegard’s universe, the Earth was the centre, and spherical, around which were arranged concentric shells or zones. The inner zones are spherical, the outer oval or egg-shaped, and the outermost so formed as to suggest the acuмinated sphere that symbolises the fifth element, quintessence of the other four. This point that tapers into outer space is in the East, which is the top of the diagram. One of her drawings, says Singer, shows that she believed the antipodeans surface of the Earth to be uninhabitable, “since it is either beneath the ocean, or in the mouth of the Dragon.” In the interior of the Earth, she believed, are two vast spaces shaped like truncated cones, where punishment was endured, and from whence great evil came forth.’
--- https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe29.htm
I found this description of the Earth very interesting. As I said before, it was Isaac Newton who proposed a bulging Earth to go along with his solar-system, a bulge depicted in astronomy books looking like a rugby ball, the shape your man on the video rightly laughed at. Domenico Cassini knew that was an invention and went out and measured the Earth as egg shaped. The truth will out says the Bible.
Finally, how many saints have been inspired to describe a flat Earth in their 'sacred texts?'
Hildegard remains a mystery. Not all her works have been translated, so we don't have her full body of work to compare these things to, but also, we have to wonder who translated her work and was it true to the text? Although it may not be accurate for obvious reasons, for the sake of this conversation we'll assume it is true to the text. But even then, we get a mixed bag. Although it sounds like she alludes to the earth itself being spherical, she also says the 'antipodes" are inhabitable. So much for Australia and the other down-under land masses on the bottom of the globe. Or are land masses in North America and Europe at the bottom? Hard to say what is up and what is down on a globe. Whatever it is, the bottom half of earth is below water or in hell. This better fits a flat earth view. But this makes it impossible she thought the earth itself is a sphere. It's also impossible to believe this incredibly brilliant saint would stand against all the other saints who wrote about the relationship between the form of the earth and how earth is the template for the Ark, the Temple and the Tabernacle. It's just hard to discern the way she says things. The saints and Fathers explain that the relationship between earth and these great symbols of the church throughout time point to the traditional liturgy: candles represent the stars, the dome above the altar represents the sky, the altar itself represents the earth, upon which the shew bread is displayed, which a type of the Eucharist. Great Catholic writers considered the entirety of creation to be like a house, with an upper and lower story. The church is called the house of God for a reason. You'll often find pillars in churches that reflect those of earth. The Church is the House of God which stands firm, like the earth, built on pillars, dome above, according to scripture. Hildegard is no doubt quite trustworthy, but her mystical experiences include a level of mysticism that, without access to the full array of her writings leaves us without an ability to fully discern all the things she's revealing. Seems impossible she was teaching something contrary to the rest of the Catholic world and contrary to scripture, because we know from where the other saints and Fathers drew their inspiration and collective understanding: From scripture and tradition, God's earth is all about the Church and the liturgy.
-
Pffft. Bertone is one of the worst out there, and he would say there are no restrictions on the works of Chardin or even Anton LaVey.
I was expecting that reaction about Bertone (he's certainly no favorite of mine), but don't let the man himself be a red herring.
The issue is whether or not what Bertone communicated (i.e., that there were currently "no condemnations or restrictions issued by ecclesiastical authorities with regard to [The Mystical City of God]" while acting in his official capacity as Secretary for the Sacred Congregation of the Congregation of the Faith, true or not.
Tom Nelson, the Publisher of TAN Books at the time and unquestionably an individual who accomplished a seemingly incalculable amount of good for the defense and promotion of Catholic tradition which is felt even to this day, apparently thought Bertone's letter was worthy of being included in the 4 Volume set of The Mystical City of God he personally oversaw and had published.
If you have any evidence to indicate that there are presently any condemnations or restrictions issued by ecclesiastical authorities with regard to The Mystical City of God please present them.
As far as historical Church approvals/approbations of The Mystical City of God, a tremendous source of review for same can be found at the following site: http://www.neemcog.com/ (http://www.neemcog.com/). Perhaps, needless to say, such approvals/approbations were carried out long before Vatican II and the doing away of the Index.
-
The issue is whether or not what Bertone communicated (i.e., that there were currently "no condemnations or restrictions issued by ecclesiastical authorities with regard to [The Mystical City of God]" while acting in his official capacity as Secretary for the Sacred Congregation of the Congregation of the Faith, true or not.
What does that mean? Almost nothing is banned by the Novus Ordo, and they got rid of the Index.
-
We've covered this before in other threads, maybe you didn't see it.
There was an official condemnation of the Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda for these reasons
1. It violated the decree of Pope Urban VIII (March 13, 1625)
2. It narrated apocryphal stories.
3. It presented opinions of the Duns Scotus theological school as divine revelation.
4. Mary of Agreda pictured the earth in the form of an egg, i.e. that the earth has a spherical shape.
5. It exaggerated the cult of Our Lady to the extent of obscuring the great Mystery of the Incarnation.
152 Masters of the Sorbonne discussed the Mystical City on thirty-two sessions, July 2-14, 1696. 102 of the 152 Masters voted against the book. At all events, Blessed Innocent signed the condemnation on June 26, 1681.
Now, this shows a couple of things. Number 1, how seriously dangerous the head of the Church and the bishops considered the spherical earth. They certainly did not agree. But secondly, the pope doesn't seem aware that the snow globe world consistent with flat earth was probably what Agreda was describing. The way her description was worded suggested the earth itself was a sphere but maybe she wasn't trying to say that. In any event, they banned the book. As stated before, flat earthers see all of creation as a globe: with hell at the bottom, in the belly of the snow globe. Flat earth in the middle. And heaven makes up the top portion of the "globe". This exact description is historically preserved in the traditions of Catholic culture as the "globus cruciger"*. The Church is proven to be in defense of the flat earth against the pagan notion of spherical earth, even to the point of condemning Agreda's book.
Tradman, you have (purposely?) left out an extremely important fact related to the above narrative so let me fill it in for you.
The very Pope who you mention, Pope Blessed Innocent XI, who signed the condemnation of The Mystical City of God in 1681 "unsigned" it later the same year! By "unsigned" I mean he completely reversed his condemnation by issuing a Brief that removed the Prohibitive Decree and, in opposition to that decree, the Pope decreed that The Mystical City of God was to be freely spread among the clergy and laity.
Anyone interested in learning the details of how the wrongful and erroneous condemnation came about in the first place and how it was then very soon completely overturned by the very Pope who made it may refer to either of the following entries:
1) To Read or Not to Read The Mystical City of God? (https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e082_Agreda.htm)
2) section titled "Opposition" at https://sensusfidelium.com/meditations/the-mystical-city-of-god-venerable-mary-of-agreda/ (https://sensusfidelium.com/meditations/the-mystical-city-of-god-venerable-mary-of-agreda/)
-
What does that mean? Almost nothing is banned by the Novus Ordo, and they got rid of the Index.
Good question. Arguably, it means that Bertone had the perfect opportunity to try to muddy the waters, albeit illegitimately, over a massive work the modernists occupying Rome hate and yet for whatever reasons he did not take advantage of it.
-
Tradman, you have (purposely?) left out an extremely important fact related to the above narrative so let me fill it in for you.
I think his point (based on what he bolded) was that the group of theologians who initially recommended its condemnation found her description of the shape of the earth to be objectionable. I'm not sure, however, whether they found objectionable the "egg" shape or the vaguely-spherical shape. This "egg" shape seems consistent with what St. Hildegard said, but it's unclear what it means. Even in the FE / ancient Hebrew view where you had a flat plane on which people lived, the OVERALL shape of the earth would be spherical, with the dome on top and the bottom part of the sphere consisting of hell + the great deep (as depicted in the image above). St. Hildegard evidently believed (based on the one commentator cited) that the bottom part of said "sphere" was uninhabitable because it was "under the ocean" (aka under the great deep beneath the earth) and/or near the mouth of hell. So just because they call it a sphere doesn't mean they believed that there was a ball that was inhabited all around. St. Hildegard did not believe that people could live on the underside of the ball. As I mentioned, even the Church Fathers who characterized the OVERALL shape of the earth as a sphere, most of them considered it objectionable to claim that people could live on the underside of it (i.e. the antipodes). By "egg" they could very well have had a notion where the dome / firmament was more like the top of an egg.
-
You see some of us know the Earth has seas, land and mountains. In other words the surface is not even. But we know the seas are even and if we use the seas as the standard surface measurement the science can work out more accurately the distance between areas and work out its bend. This of course it too complicated to your man to understand.
Flatearthism has no doubt many good arguments to explain how it could work. But it also depends on there being a long conspiracy to hide this from the world, with many thousands of people all involved in making sure this 'secret' never came out.
Best of all however, is that the biggest problem for flatearthers is to keep the edge of their Earth out of sight from anybody when all they need to do to convince all that the Earth is indeed flat by flying a plane, a spaceship, a balloon or a drone over the edge of their flat Earth taking videos or photos of it. Now that should convince everybody. So, who don't they do that? I tell you I for one would have to accept that as the only real proof for a flat Earth.
Regarding these points:
If water measurement is preferred and a 23 foot ship disappears after 6 miles out
(actually Nikon P900 cameras have shown this not to be true but let's assume it is.)
why isn't there a visible 23 foot drop on the ocean or lake horizon on the sides?
After 10 miles there should be a 66 foot drop.
When viewing 10 miles of water horizon, ocean or lake, there should be a 66 foot drop on the sides. The horizon should not be a straight line but it always is.
Also, shouldn't the drop should be visible when viewing skylines that are waterside, such as Boston, New York, Chicago, or here is Miami:
(https://i.imgur.com/0jLBB1v.png)
The buildings do not start to lean away from each other as they go "over the curve". Can you see a 66 foot drop that causes the buildings to lean?
(https://i.imgur.com/VcuDnr9.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dnXTlR5.png)
The buildings remain level just like the water.
Maybe these aren't the best photos. Are there any photos of any skyline you can provide that demonstrate the curve with the 66 foot drop after 10 miles?
As far as the longstanding conspiracy and how many people are involved, that's an understandable question. Yet we know of so many other cօռspιʀαcιҽs that have been almost universally maintained for a long time:
The earth spins 1,000 miles per hour
The earth rotates around the sun
Man came from apes
Man landed on the moon
Masks protect from covid
Social distancing will protect you from viruses
The shots that don't prevent infection or transmission will protect others
and more...
And regarding the edge, consider that no one is allowed to pass the 60th parallel unescorted by a unified governmental consensus. Why not?
This video explains further about that:
36min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7e2ONH7zHU0/
-
Tradman, you have (purposely?) left out an extremely important fact related to the above narrative so let me fill it in for you.
The very Pope who you mention, Pope Blessed Innocent XI, who signed the condemnation of The Mystical City of God in 1681 "unsigned" it later the same year! By "unsigned" I mean he completely reversed his condemnation by issuing a Brief that removed the Prohibitive Decree and, in opposition to that decree, the Pope decreed that The Mystical City of God was to be freely spread among the clergy and laity.
Anyone interested in learning the details of how the wrongful and erroneous condemnation came about in the first place and how it was then very soon completely overturned by the very Pope who made it may refer to either of the following entries:
1) To Read or Not to Read The Mystical City of God? (https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e082_Agreda.htm)
2) section titled "Opposition" at https://sensusfidelium.com/meditations/the-mystical-city-of-god-venerable-mary-of-agreda/ (https://sensusfidelium.com/meditations/the-mystical-city-of-god-venerable-mary-of-agreda/)
The point made was, that the Pope and bishops condemned her writings for said reasons, to include the heretical notion that earth is a globe. Period. Lifting the condemnation is a non issue. The condemnation itself is clear proof Catholics at the time were flat earthers. They probably discovered that she was never actually saying earth itself is a globe. Personally, I love her books and perhaps the globus cruciger had a hand in the lifting, but I'm just guessing. I also don't care what happened after the fact, and was never trying to suggest people should worry about reading her books.
-
6min 47sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zMCL7aMvP19Z/
2min 56 sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Nivloo0EAgc/
6min 47sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QbEJyrXp7mS8/
One video seems to deny a south pole, and tries to show how it appears that a south pole may exist if only it could be seen. In his diagram, he shows a flat earth model shifted halfway into a ball earth model, and the path stars take according to his diagram just does not match up with the logic he originally presented for a flat earth. The other video seems to say there definitely is a south pole, but it is actually a distorted reflection of the north pole. So, it looks to me like 2 flat earthers contradicting each other, with one also contradicting himself.
-
One video seems to deny a south pole, and tries to show how it appears that a south pole may exist if only it could be seen. In his diagram, he shows a flat earth model shifted halfway into a ball earth model, and the path stars take according to his diagram just does not match up with the logic he originally presented for a flat earth. The other video seems to say there definitely is a south pole, but it is actually a distorted reflection of the north pole. So, it looks to me like 2 flat earthers contradicting each other, with one also contradicting himself.
Just like those who believe in the ball earth, there isn't a consensus with regards to flat earth. There is room for discussion and debate.
Can you prove there is a south pole?
Antarctica is a big piece to the puzzle. People should go and explore it---oh wait, you can't.
See the video I posted above about restricted travel beyond the 60th parallel south.
You can find much more on this by doing a search on Bitchute.
Here are a couple more:
14min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoX27ItX22M
10min 45sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/E4yZxHcTtxB3/
-
Among the Church Fathers, even those who believed the earth was spherical, most did not believe that the antipodes were inhabitable.
I remember one quote, not sure who it was, but that was just remarking that it was unrealistic for peoples to have travelled that far in such a short span of time. Do you have any others?
I'd imagine another objection might be related to a common belief until the Age of Exploration that the equator would be far too warm for human inhabitation. There were even depictions of a ring of fire, although I'm not sure if those were literal or just intended to represent just how hot and uninhabitable it was supposed to be. However, nowadays both Flat and Globe Earthers agree that their versions of the equator are habitable and crossable, and also I'm pretty sure Flat Earthers don't contest that there are indeed people living on the other sides of the equator nowadays, or were pre-Columbus.
Edit: Found this:
Classical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Europe) and Medieval Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Europe) considered the Earth to be divided by the equator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator) into two hemispheres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere), the northern and southern; those who inhabited one of these hemispheres were said to be antichthones to those of the other. This idea was expounded by Mela (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomponius_Mela) and other Classical authors, though Christian writers, who believed that all people on earth must be descended from Adam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam), denied the possibility that any southern land, if it existed, could be inhabited by humans. Augustine of Hippo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo), arguing from a position of scriptural inerrancy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy), wrote in his City of God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_God_(book)) "it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man."[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichthones#cite_note-CITYO'GOD-2)
Looks like it was St. Augustine I was thinking of. I don't understand his reasoning though. Why would it be unrealistic for men to have reached the other side of the globe? It was thousands of years post-Flood by St. Augustine's day.
I'd wager it was because his understanding of the world was based on the traditional Greek one, where Europe, Asia and Africa were the only 3 continents, with Africa ending above the Horn and Asia ending soon after India, along with (of course) the equator being totally uninhabitable and probably even impassable. Their understanding of the equator was based on the Sahara Desert after all, so if it's this bad this far north of the equator, it must be totally lethal there.
Either way, whether he meant that it was just impossible to cross the equator, or that a theoretical America would be impossible to reach too, both Flat Earth and Globe Earth models alike postulate that (1) people lived on the other side of the equator, and (2) people did indeed live in the Americas. So I don't think St. Augustine's statement here hurts a Globe Earth model any more than a Flat Earth one.
-
Or did the Fathers have a similar view of the "spherical" earth that St. Hildegard did ... that, yes, it was spherical, but the bottom of the sphere was immersed in the Ocean (the Great Deep) and or where Hell is. I think that's very likely rather than that they conceived of it as a ball where people were stuck to the "underside" of it. As for the top part of the "sphere" perhaps they imagined more a convexity, or were taking into account the firmament or dome.
-
In 748, Pope St Zachary, aware of the old Pythagorean heresy that intelligent beings lived on other worlds, authorised Boniface, Bishop of Meinz and primate of Germany, to ‘take counsel’ and excommunicate the abbot of St. Peter’s Monastery in Salzburg – an Irishman called Virgil – based on rumours about his professing belief in people beyond the reach of the Church existing on the other side of the Earth (the Antipodes). As it turned out, the rumour was half right. Didn’t Christopher Columbus later discover such people when his voyages from 1492-1504 reached South America but not beyond the Church as it happened, for these people were introduced to Christianity, receiving baptism and Christ’s redemption. Whatever became of these charges is somewhat of a mystery. As it happened, Virgil ended up being made a bishop in 766.
Long forgotten today, is another proposition condemned in 1459 by Pope Pius II, ‘That God created another world than this one,’ a censure that could be said to be a better example of the heresy of the Antipodes; lands containing intelligent creatures living beyond the reach of the Gospel as held by the Catholic Church, i.e., aliens. But again, Galileo’s reformation changed all that for churchmen:
‘LOOKING FOR ALIENS,’ by M. Wertheim. ‘Throughout his astronomical career, Father George Coyne, senior scientist at the Vatican Observatory Research Group, whose work has inadvertently dovetailed with our growing desire for extraterrestrial contact, a subject about which he remains optimistically equivocal…. Roger Angel says: “Before, you could only speculate about extraterrestrial life. Now we’re at a point where we can make telescopes with which we can actually go looking for life.” Looking out at the telescopes arrayed around us, Fr Coyne suggests that we might view stars as God’s sperm. Every sperm has the potential to produce life, he says. Father Coyne is confident that we are not alone. As a priest and a scientist, the marvel for him is the universe itself.’ -- Science & Spirit website.
-
In 748, Pope St Zachary, aware of the old Pythagorean heresy that intelligent beings lived on other worlds, authorised Boniface, Bishop of Meinz and primate of Germany, to ‘take counsel’ and excommunicate the abbot of St. Peter’s Monastery in Salzburg – an Irishman called Virgil – based on rumours about his professing belief in people beyond the reach of the Church existing on the other side of the Earth (the Antipodes). As it turned out, the rumour was half right. Didn’t Christopher Columbus later discover such people when his voyages from 1492-1504 reached South America but not beyond the Church as it happened, for these people were introduced to Christianity, receiving baptism and Christ’s redemption. Whatever became of these charges is somewhat of a mystery. As it happened, Virgil ended up being made a bishop in 766.
Long forgotten today, is another proposition condemned in 1459 by Pope Pius II, ‘That God created another world than this one,’ a censure that could be said to be a better example of the heresy of the Antipodes; lands containing intelligent creatures living beyond the reach of the Gospel as held by the Catholic Church, i.e., aliens. But again, Galileo’s reformation changed all that for churchmen:
‘LOOKING FOR ALIENS,’ by M. Wertheim. ‘Throughout his astronomical career, Father George Coyne, senior scientist at the Vatican Observatory Research Group, whose work has inadvertently dovetailed with our growing desire for extraterrestrial contact, a subject about which he remains optimistically equivocal…. Roger Angel says: “Before, you could only speculate about extraterrestrial life. Now we’re at a point where we can make telescopes with which we can actually go looking for life.” Looking out at the telescopes arrayed around us, Fr Coyne suggests that we might view stars as God’s sperm. Every sperm has the potential to produce life, he says. Father Coyne is confident that we are not alone. As a priest and a scientist, the marvel for him is the universe itself.’ -- Science & Spirit website.
Galileo's so called 'reformation' has been a metaphysical deformation of truth that permeates our culture to this day. In every sense of the word the globe is the great generator of revolution. Because most people believe in the globe, they now believe that the church is anti-science, stupid, and obviously not infallible because it was in error about the shape of earth. Eliminate the sphere and all sorts of little nasties dogging the church vanish into thin air: atheistic beginnings of the universe lose support, anitipodes go away, other distant worlds disappear, as does impossible to reach people on other planets, alien abductions, climate change, evolution, the Big Bang, population control, even blasphemous notions of "God's sperm". The globe is a big generator of revenue for the elite with which they incite fantasy religions conducive to that kind of universe. The globe, orphaned in space, naturally has a limited supply of water and energy running out, giving governments psychological advantage to assist them in promoting fear necessary for ruling with an iron grip. How thrilled they must be to be known as "globalists" protecting "mother earth". Even Francis' enthronement of his climate-change naked icon giving birth to a globe would never have happened if people were loyal to God rather than globalist "science".
-
Just like those who believe in the ball earth, there isn't a consensus with regards to flat earth. There is room for discussion and debate.
Can you prove there is a south pole?
Antarctica is a big piece to the puzzle. People should go and explore it---oh wait, you can't.
See the video I posted above about restricted travel beyond the 60th parallel south.
You can find much more on this by doing a search on Bitchute.
Here are a couple more:
14min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoX27ItX22M
10min 45sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/E4yZxHcTtxB3/
What disagreements are there among ball earthers?
Unfortunately, the south pole seems out of my practical reach.
Do they shoot down any plane or drone that attempts to reach Antarctica? It's unfortunate that there is no inhabitable land that extends south as far as it does north. Someone could travel to the tip of South America and get a good view of the sky from a mountain top. As far as I could find with only a few minutes of research, there is an inconsistency regarding the length of days near the south pole. Wikipedia says, even in the summer, the cities at the southern tip of Chile get only a couple hours of daylight, while another website said they get just as much as the northern hemisphere. What neither website specifies is whether the length of day is based on day light, or visible sun exposure. Most cities down there are near sea level port cities surrounded by steep mountains that would block much of the sun. I can also think of some good arguments for limiting access to Antarctica, as far as foreign relations go.
So far Antarctica seems to be the best argument for a flat earth, but it is inconclusive to me at this point.
What about other planets? Can't we tell they are ball shaped via telescopes, with moons orbiting them? Why can they be globes, but not the Earth?
-
Unfortunately, the south pole seems out of my practical reach.
And even if FEs could gather the funds to send an expedition, they wouldn't be allowed to go down there. There is no doubt whatsoever that they're hiding something down there. There were videos of guys in a boat trying to approach Antarctica only to be intercepted by an actual battleship and forced to turn around. Seriously? They patrol Anatarctic waters with battleships ... to keep the world safe for penguins? There was another guy in a small plane who was intercepted by a fighter jet and accompanied back to their base. He asked the commander if they would have shot him down had he not heeded their orders to turn around? Commander said they would have. Again, to protect some frozen wasteland from a bozo in a small plane? In that latter case, it certainly wasn't because the man might have been endangering himself, since they were prepared to shoot him down.
There's certainly SOMEthing down there they don't want people to know about.
-
And even if FEs could gather the funds to send an expedition, they wouldn't be allowed to go down there. There is no doubt whatsoever that they're hiding something down there. There were videos of guys in a boat trying to approach Antarctica only to be intercepted by an actual battleship and forced to turn around. Seriously? They patrol Anatarctic waters with battleships ... to keep the world safe for penguins? There was another guy in a small plane who was intercepted by a fighter jet and accompanied back to their base. He asked the commander if they would have shot him down had he not heeded their orders to turn around? Commander said they would have. Again, to protect some frozen wasteland from a bozo in a small plane? In that latter case, it certainly wasn't because the man might have been endangering himself, since they were prepared to shoot him down.
There's certainly SOMEthing down there they don't want people to know about.
Antarctica is one of those things that really raises a red flag for me on the subject. Strangely enough, I was reminded of this when watching one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies a couple weeks ago (not proof, just interesting). Their world is flat, so they have to sail through what is basically the "ice wall" to the edge. It came across as one of those forms of programming that we all know Hollywood tends to do.
https://youtu.be/c5KdDG7htfY
-
How can the sun project the shadow of a skyscraper or mountain onto clouds that are higher than said building or mountain if the Earth was flat?
-
It can't. This only works if the sun is spatially below the clouds and the mountain / skyscraper.
Here's a beautiful Mt. Rainier sunrise:
(https://i.imgur.com/9NyxIQ3.jpg)
-
How can the sun project the shadow of a skyscraper or mountain onto clouds that are higher than said building or mountain if the Earth was flat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2wPg3r6i_Y
This incredible video answers your question perfectly, along with several other revelations about the sun's movement.
-
How can the sun project the shadow of a skyscraper or mountain onto clouds that are higher than said building or mountain if the Earth was flat?
This argument has been thoroughly debunked, where the exact opposite is in fact proven.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2wPg3r6i_Y
This incredible video answers your question perfectly, along with several other revelations about the sun's movement.
At 10:58, I don't buy it, and then his argument gets weaker from there, like we are supposed to trust his claim of perspective any more than another's claim of assumed or logical conclusion based on what they see. Both could err just as easily. Where's the science to back it up? I think there's too much confirmation bias involved in that video. He's trying to debunk pictures below cloud level on the shadow side looking toward the mountain with time lapses from the top of the mountain looking away and down toward cloud level. Shadows inside his house are from lower light sources as the windows and the majority of the light from them are below the top of his fridge and ceiling fan.
I think a sure test would be to find 2 very tall things of the same height, spaced far apart, but close to inline with each other and the sun. If the earth is round, the object closer to the sun should have a taller shadow briefly in the morning and evening. Such an effect would still happen even if the objects were on truly flat ground without any natural Earth curvature only if the sun comes up from below the horizon. The problems with testing comes from the great distance of the sun making the shadow angles very slight, and the small margin of time during the morning and evening when this could be observed. Also, finding the right buildings or mountains for the example could be difficult. The higher the objects used and the farther they are spaced, the better, except far spacing makes shadows have blurred edges.
The large box below represents something for the shadows to be cast on. The red line shows the smaller boxes are the same height.
(https://i.imgur.com/lKzTA0W.png)
Flying a helicopter through the shadow of a tall building while still being able to see over that building would also work.
-
At 10:58, I don't buy it, and then his argument gets weaker from there, like we are supposed to trust his claim of perspective any more than another's claim of assumed or logical conclusion based on what they see. Both could err just as easily. Where's the science to back it up? I think there's too much confirmation bias involved in that video. He's trying to debunk pictures below cloud level on the shadow side looking toward the mountain with time lapses from the top of the mountain looking away and down toward cloud level. Shadows inside his house are from lower light sources as the windows and the majority of the light from them are below the top of his fridge and ceiling fan.
I think a sure test would be to find 2 very tall things of the same height, spaced far apart, but close to inline with each other and the sun. If the earth is round, the object closer to the sun should have a taller shadow briefly in the morning and evening. Such an effect would still happen even if the objects were on truly flat ground without any natural Earth curvature only if the sun comes up from below the horizon. The problems with testing comes from the great distance of the sun making the shadow angles very slight, and the small margin of time during the morning and evening when this could be observed. Also, finding the right buildings or mountains for the example could be difficult. The higher the objects used and the farther they are spaced, the better, except far spacing makes shadows have blurred edges.
The large box below represents something for the shadows to be cast on. The red line shows the smaller boxes are the same height.
(https://i.imgur.com/lKzTA0W.png)
Flying a helicopter through the shadow of a tall building while still being able to see over that building would also work.
Even if you don't buy his visual experiment, he explains that point is moot because the sun is always higher than the mountains and the clouds. If you're suggesting the sun can cast a shadow from behind the curve of the earth that argument is impossible because the shadow of the earth would not cause a mountain shaped shadow but a bigger, rounder one, which clearly doesn't happen.
-
That's the issue here: whether the sun is always above everything on a flat earth, or whether the earth is a globe making it possible for a brief amount of time for the rays of the sun to be coming from a source closer to the ground than a tall object relative to that object's flat and level position
I am not suggesting that the sun can cast a shadow from behind the curve of the earth either. Right when the sun is visible on the horizon, and for a very short amount of time after, the sun will be shining from a lower point than the top of tall objects relative to their position. Any lower, and those objects are in the earth's shadow. Any higher, and the sun will be shining from a relative higher position. To experiment with this and try to film it actually happening would not be easy. It should not be done on land unless the land is bare and has very minimal elevation changes for several miles, so any hills and trees don't block the sun until it is already relatively above the top of the tall objects being used to cast shadows. Fog, or a backdrop of some sort will be needed to see that the shadows are being cast up, and not horizontal or down. A plane or helicopter should also work to put the viewer in the shadow, but still able to see over the object casting the shadow.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZJhl8qk.png)
One issue I just noticed about my image here is a problem of perspective: the sun is actually much bigger in the globe earth model even though it looks small to us. But, even with a poor representation of a larger sun (see below), far from accurate scale, there will still be a shadow behind the earth, and 2 parts of the earth where the sun is relatively level with the ground, or slightly below tall objects.
(https://i.imgur.com/nUgT9Y2.png)
-
That's the issue here: whether the sun is always above everything on a flat earth, or whether the earth is a globe making it possible for a brief amount of time for the rays of the sun to be coming from a source closer to the ground than a tall object relative to that object's flat and level position
I am not suggesting that the sun can cast a shadow from behind the curve of the earth either. Right when the sun is visible on the horizon, and for a very short amount of time after, the sun will be shining from a lower point than the top of tall objects relative to their position. Any lower, and those objects are in the earth's shadow. Any higher, and the sun will be shining from a relative higher position. To experiment with this and try to film it actually happening would not be easy. It should not be done on land unless the land is bare and has very minimal elevation changes for several miles, so any hills and trees don't block the sun until it is already relatively above the top of the tall objects being used to cast shadows. Fog, or a backdrop of some sort will be needed to see that the shadows are being cast up, and not horizontal or down. A plane or helicopter should also work to put the viewer in the shadow, but still able to see over the object casting the shadow.
So you're saying that the globe model sun, is in the exact position as the flat earth model sun, in order to produce the shadow. That doesn't prove earth is a globe, but that the principles and experiments shown in the video, proven to work on a flat earth, might also apply to the globe earth sun, when the sun is in the same place at the same time. The globe model people suggested a different reason for why the shadow happens. Had globe model proponents explained the phenomenon the right way, I might have to ponder the whole scenario a bit longer. But they didn't. Flat earthers explained it, and proves it works brilliantly on the flat earth model. Placing the sun in the exact same place and time, in the exact same conditions works, so good job lining them up. Still, it doesn't prove earth is a globe. It proves the flat earth explanation works, but undermines the original globe earth explanations that people use to deny earth is flat.
-
So you're saying that the globe model sun, is in the exact position as the flat earth model sun, in order to produce the shadow. That doesn't prove earth is a globe, but that the principles and experiments shown in the video, proven to work on a flat earth, might also apply to the globe earth sun, when the sun is in the same place at the same time. The globe model people suggested a different reason for why the shadow happens. Had globe model proponents explained the phenomenon the right way, I might have to ponder the whole scenario a bit longer. But they didn't. Flat earthers explained it, and proves it works brilliantly on the flat earth model. Placing the sun in the exact same place and time, in the exact same conditions works, so good job lining them up. Still, it doesn't prove earth is a globe. It proves the flat earth explanation works, but undermines the original globe earth explanations that people use to deny earth is flat.
I don't think we are understanding each other, but then I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words, and I'm not the best at understanding what others are trying to communicate.
The way I understand it: the sun in the flat earth model has a fixed altitude. If that is true, and it is always higher than buildings and mountains, then never can it cast a shadow from a tall object upward. Perspective would have nothing to do with it. Sure, as things (in this case the sun) move farther away, they get smaller and appear to move toward the horizon, such that the sun appears to descend to the ground. On a flat earth, it never reaches the ground, but as the sun gets farther away, the angle of the light moves toward horizontal. It will never reach horizontal though. In the globe model, the angle of the light can not only reach horizontal relative to an object on the earth, but it can reach an angle lower than horizontal to the object without being blocked by the earth if the object is tall enough.
-
I don't think we are understanding each other, but then I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words, and I'm not the best at understanding what others are trying to communicate.
The way I understand it: the sun in the flat earth model has a fixed altitude. If that is true, and it is always higher than buildings and mountains, then never can it cast a shadow from a tall object upward. Perspective would have nothing to do with it. Sure, as things (in this case the sun) move farther away, they get smaller and appear to move toward the horizon, such that the sun appears to descend to the ground. On a flat earth, it never reaches the ground, but as the sun gets farther away, the angle of the light moves toward horizontal. It will never reach horizontal though. In the globe model, the angle of the light can not only reach horizontal relative to an object on the earth, but it can reach an angle lower than horizontal to the object without being blocked by the earth if the object is tall enough.
No, the sun in the flat earth model does not have a fixed altitude. The sun works through the year in a pattern known as an analemma, something not accounted for in the ball earth model, which would have the earth doing some crazy non-orbiting back and forths not even NASA tries to explain. This analemma has been noted by scientists, and time lapse photographed. Wiki has an entry on it and while they always try to make stuff fit the globe model, it doesn't make sense.
-
While we didn't sit down or have a beer, I had an email discussion with Sungenis a few years ago and at the time, he was closed to FE. I had another discussion with Rick Delano, his movie partner, on FB, and he also disregarded every FE argument. With all their books and movies on the line, I doubt either can be reached. Of course, you never know. If you wrote to Sungenis, he'd probably answer.
Delano became a very close friend/associate of Dr. Wolfgang Smith. As of yet I have not been able to determine whether or not Smith is a flat earther. BTW, Delano passed away last January 23rd. See Rick Delano -- R.I.P. (https://philos-sophia.org/rick-delano/)
-
No, the sun in the flat earth model does not have a fixed altitude. The sun works through the year in a pattern known as an analemma, something not accounted for in the ball earth model, which would have the earth doing some crazy non-orbiting back and forths not even NASA tries to explain. This analemma has been noted by scientists, and time lapse photographed. Wiki has an entry on it and while they always try to make stuff fit the globe model, it doesn't make sense.
-
Delano became a very close friend/associate of Dr. Wolfgang Smith. As of yet I have not been able to determine whether or not Smith is a flat earther. BTW, Delano passed away last January 23rd. See Rick Delano -- R.I.P. (https://philos-sophia.org/rick-delano/)
Shortly after I posted this I got a quick answer to my inquiry from https://philos-sophia.org/ (https://philos-sophia.org/)The answer read in part: "Dr. Smith affirms, with every educated Westerner since ancient times, that Earth is a globe."
(https://philos-sophia.org/)