Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Ladislaus on January 12, 2024, 06:58:55 PM
-
This guy made a live video of himself from 12.4 miles away. There should be about 75-80 feet hidden by curvature at that distance (depending on the height of the camera above the ground), but you can see nearly 100% of the guy (almost down to his shoes). And he's not an FE and didn't think about the implications of what he was doing, but simply wanted to be acknowledged for a World Record for longest distance video. I'm not sure how he transmitted the sound across that distance though.
Now, the proper way to demonstrate FE would be to get a reading on elevation at each location, but he said the entire thing was across a single valley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oHHYrQLGks
-
At what point does that inevitable refraction kick in? Love these vids.
-
Lad, gave the obvious answer. The elevations are crucial to know. At that distance he could have easily been 500 feet higher than the camera. 70 or 100 feet would be imperceptible to the human eye at 12 miles.
-
Also the "drop' due to the curvature is about 1.2 ft/mile, so for 12 miles should be aprox. 14 ft, not 75-80 ft.
-
Across the same valley?
You can't be obscured by an intervening convex surface when you're both in the same concave surface feature.
-
Also the "drop' due to the curvature is about 1.2 ft/mile, so for 12 miles should be aprox. 14 ft, not 75-80 ft.
That is incorrect. Because it’s a curve, it’s logarithmic. Good rule of thumb is squaring the miles and then multiplying by 8 inches.
Wherever did you get that 1.2 feet per mile number? It would be 8 inches after 1 mile, 32 inches after 2 miles, 72 inches after 3, etc.
-
Lad, gave the obvious answer. The elevations are crucial to know. At that distance he could have easily been 500 feet higher than the camera. 70 or 100 feet would be imperceptible to the human eye at 12 miles.
That’s why I said that to do it right, you’d have to get the elevation to be precise. But he shows the stretch on Google Maps and also shows pictures of the terrain. It’s relatively flat across the valley.
There are hundreds of experiments showing 0 drop over 20 miles over bodies of water, using two way lasers (ruling out refraction), and many verified record-breaking pictures by non-FEs showing things like a 150-foot-above-sea-level lighthouse from 237 miles away when it should be hidden by miles of curvature. Evidence is simply overwhelming.
-
Not gonna make a new thread but here is another video for flat earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP3firT4HBM
-
This is a good one. Especially since it pans all over the place in the skyline, totally refuting the notion of some hazy refraction or "mirage".
Everything, including the vehicles, is clear and not distorted. Globe Earth RIP.
-
Yes, I certainly didn't set out to be a "Flat Earther when I grow up".
But the truth is the truth. The evidence IS pretty overwhelming. If you carefully analyze the evidence, there is only one conclusion.
-
Excellent vid.
-
If I remember correctly, Fr Hesse said something about Thomas Aquinas saying that first we believe in something, then we explain it.
It's really easy to explain flat earth when you already believe it. Perhaps that is why so many people of so many different views (protestants, Muslims, liberals, evolutionists, and honestly even Catholics and conservatives) are so stubborn in their opinions/beliefs even against contradictory evidence.
-
If I remember correctly, Fr Hesse said something about Thomas Aquinas saying that first we believe in something, then we explain it.
It's really easy to explain flat earth when you already believe it. Perhaps that is why so many people of so many different views (protestants, Muslims, liberals, evolutionists, and honestly even Catholics and conservatives) are so stubborn in their opinions/beliefs even against contradictory evidence.
Credo ut intelligam.
What you're missing is that no current FE started off by believing that earth is flat. We've all been indoctrinated into globe earth. It took me personally 2 years of going through the evidence and arguments from both sides, before I became an FE, rather reluctantly. Many of the current FEs actually set out to debunk it and then became convinced they had been wrong.
My personal process:
1) I think it's ridiculous, but because I deliberately keep an open mind, I'll have a look (based on posts that the FEs made in that sub-forum). I can't just dismiss it and write it off while knowing very little about the case they're trying to make.
2) Hmmm, this isn't as ridiculous as I thought. There may be SOMEthing to it. Let me dig some more.
3) Wow, I'm starting to think they might be right. I can't believe this.
4) I lean FE (as I posted in the sub-forum)
5) I'm completely convinced.
This process took two years, and the one thing you have to already know to be able to successfully navigate through this is that the government lies like it's going out of style. I already knew that the moon landings were a complete hoax, so it wasn't that much of a stretch to believe that NASA might be lying about other stuff as well.
-
1) I think it's ridiculous, but because I deliberately keep an open mind, I'll have a look (based on posts that the FEs made in that sub-forum). I can't just dismiss it and write it off while knowing very little about the case they're trying to make.
Very few globe advocates can get past Step 1.
-
Also, in pursuit of truth, I always engage in the thought experiment of pretending that I'm an ardent globe earth proponent and am trying to prove that the earth is a globe. Can I do it? I find that I cannot. I'm not talking about sophistically throwing nonsensical arguments out there like, "boats disappear bottom up as they sail away" or "NASA says so" or "Why can't you see across the Atlantic ocean?" or just throwing the word "refraction" out there as a last resort. I'm talking about concrete evidence that's compelling.
I've done the same thing with things like evolution, atheism, etc. In each case, I simply cannot make a case for the other side (even pretending that I believe in these things).
-
That is incorrect. Because it’s a curve, it’s logarithmic. Good rule of thumb is squaring the miles and then multiplying by 8 inches.
Wherever did you get that 1.2 feet per mile number? It would be 8 inches after 1 mile, 32 inches after 2 miles, 72 inches after 3, etc.
I used trigonometry which is pretty close given the size of the earth. See calculations attached. In reality the hypotenuse would be less than 1 mile because of the arc.
-
I used trigonometry which is pretty close given the size of the earth. See calculations attached. In reality the hypotenuse would be less than 1 mile because of the arc.
Well, whatever you did, it's wrong. You don't have a consistent 1.2 foot drop per mile, because it's a curve, and therefore it drops exponentially. Just depict 1.2 feet per mile on a sheet of graph paper. You get a straight line with a downward slope. There are at least a half dozen earth curvature calculators online where you can check the actual math. But the rule of thumb that is very accurate up to over 100 miles is 8 inches per miles squared, so you square the miles and then multiply that by 8 inches. You can use trigonometry to get the actual result (and the online calculators use that), but I've seen charts where the simple rule is off only by a foot or so after 100 miles.
-
One of the worst parts about flat earth is so much of it has protestant garbage attached to it. Didn't some Catholic Saints not believe in Antipodes?
Sometimes it just really exhausting being traditional Catholic. Etc. BoD/BoB/II/Flat earth/vaccines etc. I guess this is simply part of the Cross we carry.
-
One of the worst parts about flat earth is so much of it has protestant garbage attached to it.
You just said the quiet part out loud. Think about it.
-
One of the worst parts about flat earth is so much of it has protestant garbage attached to it. Didn't some Catholic Saints not believe in Antipodes?
Sometimes it just really exhausting being traditional Catholic. Etc. BoD/BoB/II/Flat earth/vaccines etc. I guess this is simply part of the Cross we carry.
I like to use the Jew litmus test to size up people. But what if some people pass the Jew litmus test, only to promote other idiocies for the furtherance of Jew power?
I don't stand on solid ground when I'm skeptical of those who claim a flat earth or that there was no moon landing.
I suspect the earth is round-ish and that there were moon landings. But it's in the arena of a hunch.
-
One of the worst parts about flat earth is so much of it has protestant garbage attached to it.
That is completely irrelevant. Any truth with humans involved, INCLUDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH, has hundreds of spin-off errors which are wrong, even if they "originated" in the truth.
Truth is one, error is many.
Do we write off the Catholic Faith because the Arians took that Faith and added an error to it? OF COURSE NOT.
Sadly, humans have a LITERALLY INFINITE capacity for getting things wrong, in an INFINITE number of ways. The darkening of our intellect -- our excellence at getting things wrong -- was one of the Wounds of Original Sin.
Welcome to the Human Race.
-
So all you guys who are scandalized by the "chaos" or "infighting" in the Resistance (heck, you might as well acknowledge the same chaos in Tradition itself), or the "errors" by this or that personage in the Flat Earth community -- get with the program.
One person's error doesn't disprove everything the man believes. What if he believes it's wrong to murder?
We are forced to pick and choose, to sift truth from error.
I personally found several Protestant preachers/groups to be the best resources in current year for issues like Evolution, Young Earth, Creationism, dinosaurs, the Y chromosome proving young earth, and many other issues. Sure, I ignore when they throw in a Protestant bit -- but they've spent years of study and developed quite a body of apologetics for certain natural truths.
Perhaps because of the disaster in the Church at Vatican II, Catholics have been occupied with other issues.
-
I personally found several Protestant preachers/groups to be the best resources in current year for issues like Evolution, Young Earth, Creationism, dinosaurs, the Y chromosome proving young earth, and many other issues. Sure, I ignore when they throw in a Protestant bit -- but they've spent years of study and developed quite a body of apologetics for certain natural truths.
I agree. There's actually a dearth of this kind of thing in Catholic circles and when I started looking into young earth, geocentrism, etc., it took me forever to stumble upon the Kolbe Center. To their credit, Prots have taken the time to read into their King James, take it literally, and then looked to see if the natural world lines up with it. I can only surmise it's because the average pew-sitting Catholic is usually concerned with raising a family and getting to Mass on Sunday and that seems to be where it stops.
-
I personally found several Protestant preachers/groups to be the best resources in current year for issues like Evolution, Young Earth, Creationism, dinosaurs, the Y chromosome proving young earth, and many other issues. Sure, I ignore when they throw in a Protestant bit -- but they've spent years of study and developed quite a body of apologetics for certain natural truths.
Perhaps because of the disaster in the Church at Vatican II, Catholics have been occupied with other issues.
Agree with the first paragraph. As for the second, there are actually a fair number of Trads who have bought into the Fr. Paul Robinson perspective, and reject "Biblicism" because it's associated with Protestantism. Guy who invented "Big Bang" theory was a Catholic priest. So there's that also.
We have had the Kolbe Institute out there with regard to a lot of issues, though they're anti-FE.
-
Very few globe advocates can get past Step 1.
I got to step 3.5, considering thats as far as I could go based on contradictions and insufficiently strong evidence on both sides, but later went back to a very high level of confidence that the earth is a globe based on evidence I can see in person and reason out myself.
Evidence like 1) observing the evening sunlight shining up from below cloud level, illuminating the underside of clouds and, casting shadows of the clouds and land features upward.
2) observing the morning sunlight do the same as far as watching it transition from below to above cloud level (of which I have a video, unfortunately it is likely poor quality, but I haven't checked it yet).
3) yesterday I saw light rays or rather the shadows blocking the rays that lit up the perfectly clear sky in the evening, when the sun was BELOW the horizon. Must have been from mountains or sky scrapers.
4) I have long ago watched a thin sliver of the moon grow and shrink over a few minutes( I'm guesstimating a half hour or less) as the shadow of the earth changed based on the changing altitude of the horizon.
5) if the sun just got farther away at night and was otherwise only a few hundred miles above the ground, it would look biggest at mid day, and tiny at morning and evening, but it always looks the same, occasionally even bigger at sunrise and set.
6) in addition to number 5, the sunlight should not appear and disappear so quickly if the sun is just moving far away over flat ground, but night and day transitions are very fast as if the sun is going to the other side of a globe.
7) I have noticed a pattern that I see most satellites in the late evening, or very early morning. Otherwise they disappear in the shadow of the earth somewhere overhead most other times of the night.
-
All those "objections" have an answer in Flat Earth. Just so you know. You need to investigate further. Your objections are hardly clear-cut evidence, but meanwhile many FE arguments totally disprove the Globe. Like the subject of this very thread. So what's the deal? Is the earth actually 1 million miles in diameter or something? Where is all the hidden land?
And wouldn't that make gravity (according to officially accepted gravity equations) 10 or 100X stronger than it actually is?
I'm pretty sure I don't weigh 1,000 or 2,000 pounds.
-
I got to step 3.5, considering thats as far as I could go based on contradictions and insufficiently strong evidence on both sides, but later went back to a very high level of confidence that the earth is a globe based on evidence I can see in person and reason out myself.
Evidence like 1) observing the evening sunlight shining up from below cloud level, illuminating the underside of clouds and, casting shadows of the clouds and land features upward.
2) observing the morning sunlight do the same as far as watching it transition from below to above cloud level (of which I have a video, unfortunately it is likely poor quality, but I haven't checked it yet).
3) yesterday I saw light rays or rather the shadows blocking the rays that lit up the perfectly clear sky in the evening, when the sun was BELOW the horizon. Must have been from mountains or sky scrapers.
4) I have long ago watched a thin sliver of the moon grow and shrink over a few minutes( I'm guesstimating a half hour or less) as the shadow of the earth changed based on the changing altitude of the horizon.
5) if the sun just got farther away at night and was otherwise only a few hundred miles above the ground, it would look biggest at mid day, and tiny at morning and evening, but it always looks the same, occasionally even bigger at sunrise and set.
6) in addition to number 5, the sunlight should not appear and disappear so quickly if the sun is just moving far away over flat ground, but night and day transitions are very fast as if the sun is going to the other side of a globe.
7) I have noticed a pattern that I see most satellites in the late evening, or very early morning. Otherwise they disappear in the shadow of the earth somewhere overhead most other times of the night.
I have a problem with #4. Are you suggesting that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth’s shadow? If so, that is not correct.
You are very right to use your own two eyes, do your own experiments, and observe the movements of the Sun and Moon.
-
I have a problem with #4. Are you suggesting that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth’s shadow? If so, that is not correct.
You are very right to use your own two eyes, do your own experiments, and observe the movements of the Sun and Moon.
No, but I thought that might have been the case in that particular time. Maybe it was me seeing the sun set on the moon's mountainous horizon. That would explain the rough shape of the sliver of light. Something didn't seem right as I was typing #4, but I explained it as I thought of it when I saw it around 10 years ago.
After observing #3, I could clearly see the whole moon even though it was almost as waned as in #4. It was a particularly dark orb in the night sky. I know Lad has problems with what the moon becomes when not lit up.
-
All those "objections" have an answer in Flat Earth. Just so you know. You need to investigate further. Your objections are hardly clear-cut evidence, but meanwhile many FE arguments totally disprove the Globe. Like the subject of this very thread. So what's the deal? Is the earth actually 1 million miles in diameter or something? Where is all the hidden land?
And wouldn't that make gravity (according to officially accepted gravity equations) 10 or 100X stronger than it actually is?
I'm pretty sure I don't weigh 1,000 or 2,000 pounds.
One of your FE proofs/explanations clearly rules in favor of globe, which further set me off of FE. It caused me to recognize some error humans commonly fall into when putting too much trust into their own judgments. I put sedes in the same category, and a lot of other beliefs belong there too. I'm sure I've been in that category on many issues. We dumb things down according to our own personal understanding of things, pass judgment, and call ourselves and anyone who agrees right as if we can't err. If I had the time and skills to do it, I'd make videos to counter the FE ones, since people like visual aides.
The guy wouldn't choose any other spot to film than what can bee seen by the camera. That would be really stupid. He probably chose a target he could see at the distance he wanted, and set the camera there, and drove out in an attempt to find that spot, or something like that.
-
Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it. With my limited knowledge of advanced mathematics all of the FE videos seem to argue in favor of FE. I am not one to pooh pooh an argument because it seems "far fetched." I have read too much to go along with the herd mentality. In fact, many more lies, than truths, have been told by historians.
Speaking of lies, tomorrow we will be inundated, "Oh MLK, he is the greatest thing since sliced bread...blah, blah, blah."
-
I got to step 3.5, considering thats as far as I could go based on contradictions and insufficiently strong evidence on both sides, but later went back to a very high level of confidence that the earth is a globe based on evidence I can see in person and reason out myself.
Evidence like 1) observing the evening sunlight shining up from below cloud level, illuminating the underside of clouds and, casting shadows of the clouds and land features upward.
2) observing the morning sunlight do the same as far as watching it transition from below to above cloud level (of which I have a video, unfortunately it is likely poor quality, but I haven't checked it yet).
3) yesterday I saw light rays or rather the shadows blocking the rays that lit up the perfectly clear sky in the evening, when the sun was BELOW the horizon. Must have been from mountains or sky scrapers.
4) I have long ago watched a thin sliver of the moon grow and shrink over a few minutes( I'm guesstimating a half hour or less) as the shadow of the earth changed based on the changing altitude of the horizon.
5) if the sun just got farther away at night and was otherwise only a few hundred miles above the ground, it would look biggest at mid day, and tiny at morning and evening, but it always looks the same, occasionally even bigger at sunrise and set.
6) in addition to number 5, the sunlight should not appear and disappear so quickly if the sun is just moving far away over flat ground, but night and day transitions are very fast as if the sun is going to the other side of a globe.
7) I have noticed a pattern that I see most satellites in the late evening, or very early morning. Otherwise they disappear in the shadow of the earth somewhere overhead most other times of the night.
Add to this list the North Star. What do we know about the it and what can be extrapolated from that?
When and wherever Polaris can be seen from Earth it is always due north being within 1 degree of true north.
It's inclination always matches the viewers latitude.
The Big Dipper points to it and goes around it in a circle.
If the Earth is flat we can calculate Polaris' height in the sky using a right angle. Line A is height, Line B is distance North Pole to latitude X, line C is hypotenuse. At 80°N line B is 690mi (69ish mi per latitude). Angle BC is 80°. Polaris is 3,913mi in height.
Now move south and problems begin. At 3,913mi up Polaris will be about 20° inclination at 80°S latitude (690 mi north of the South Pole) but the reality is it can't be seen from there by a long shot. Polaris is actually 20° inclination at 20°N latitude which is approx Hawaii. But at that inclination in Hawaii, Polaris triangulates to 1,758mi altitude. The reason for the discrepancy is the viewers horizon is tangentially skewed up as he "slides" down the side of the sphere, bringing the North Star lower in inclination than just plain distance can account for.
Also, if the Earth was flat, constellations (and all stars in general for that matter) should orbit celestial north in an apparent ellipse. Consider the Big Dipper pointing to the North Star as a plane or disk. That plane would have to be parallel to the flat earth and relatively low as shown above. Its height to radial travel distance ratio would be so low it would appear non circular.
-
We (globe truthers) also have the added difficulty of flat earth not having a working map to scrutinize. The constellations and distances between continents becomes very problematic in the southern hemisphere. Like for instance, show me a flat earth model where the Southern Cross can be seen from South Africa, South America, and Australia at the same time? I have tried to see how it could work and have asked for a working model but that hasn't happened.
For the record, I am not all that married to the globe earth as to be bias. I once believed we went to the moon, but now don't. I once believed the earth moved and rotated but now don't. Flat earths gotta stop judging. You don't know me and it shows.
I pray this helps,
JoeZ
-
I got to step 3.5, considering thats as far as I could go based on contradictions and insufficiently strong evidence on both sides, but later went back to a very high level of confidence that the earth is a globe based on evidence I can see in person and reason out myself.
Evidence like 1) observing the evening sunlight shining up from below cloud level, illuminating the underside of clouds and, casting shadows of the clouds and land features upward.
No, you didn't, thoroughly debunked by computer simulations.
If the Earth was a ball the Sun would always cast a shadow of the Earth bulge on the under side of clouds forming a straight line. We don't observe that in reality but only when you simulate the Earth being a ball. It's on taboo conspiracy's channel.
-
No, you didn't, thoroughly debunked by computer simulations.
If the Earth was a ball the Sun would always cast a shadow of the Earth bulge on the under side of clouds forming a straight line. We don't observe that in reality but only when you simulate the Earth being a ball. It's on taboo conspiracy's channel.
That was a pretty bad video. That's what really turned me sour on FE. TC has very often put out videos trying to prove FE while showing evidence that doesn't match up very well with whatever explanation they give, as if the channel is designed to deceive, or the analysts are just stubborn bad willed die hard FEs.
If I remember correctly, they never discussed in that video any evidence provided by the simulation that proves GE, but instead said: aha, we've got them now, GE is once and for all proven false because of this shadow of the horizon on the clouds. Simultaneously I was thinking that they just proved GE and my personal real life observations in a simulation. They completely disregarded the fact that the simulation both showed the mountain casting a shadow up onto the clouds and the illumination of the underside of the clouds just like in real life.
The explanation why the clear line from the shadow of the earth bulge is not clear in real life is for a few reasons.
1) the distances in real life are much larger giving the boundary between light and shadow more time to mix, because light tends to scatter.
2) air exists in real life, which causes much light to scatter and mix with the shadow.
3) the bulge of the horizon is not perfectly smooth, but has hills, trees, buildings, mountains, plains, and rough (as far as light reflection is concerned) surfaces of water. These would break up that smooth shadow line, making it a more gradual and uneven transition.
4) cloud patterns interfering with the sunlight before it reaches the horizon to cast a shadow back onto clouds further breaks up and scatters the light.
I have seen this shadow when I've seen satellites in a clear night sky disappear overhead as they moved east away from the recently set sun and into the shadow of the earth.
I might post some pictures of a demonstration of blending between the light and dark around a shadow boundary later today. The slightest mixing makes a huge difference when several miles of distance are involved in combination with the above causes for interference with a smooth line.
-
That was a pretty bad video.
Right, because you say so.
-
That's what really turned me sour on FE. TC has very often put out videos trying to prove FE while showing evidence that doesn't match up very well with whatever explanation they give, as if the channel is designed to deceive, or the analysts are just stubborn bad willed die hard FEs.
Nonsense. You set out hostile to FE and refusing to look at it with an open mind. At least be honest with yourself.
-
Like for instance, show me a flat earth model where the Southern Cross can be seen from South Africa, South America, and Australia at the same time? I have tried to see how it could work and have asked for a working model but that hasn't happened.
That's been dealt with very simply. You just don't want to see it. There's a certain window of a few minutes where the very West of Australia, the East of South America, and of course South Africa are all in darkness, and where they could see the Southern Cross at the same time. This isn't even particularly difficult.
-
For the record, I am not all that married to the globe earth as to be bias. I once believed we went to the moon, but now don't. I once believed the earth moved and rotated but now don't.
That was me from 2-7 years ago.
I stopped believing in the Moon landings as soon as I looked into it at all. Let's just say that as a Trad, I've had an open mind to "unpopular opinions" (such as Trad Catholicism itself) since I was a child.
I stopped believing in the rotating Earth when "The Princple" and "Galileo Was Wrong" movies came out several years ago. I never knew, before those movies, that scientists have tried to prove the earth moved for centuries and kept failing, and even proving the opposite without wanting to!
-
That was me from 2-7 years ago.
I stopped believing in the Moon landings as soon as I looked into it at all. Let's just say that as a Trad, I've had an open mind to "unpopular opinions" (such as Trad Catholicism itself) since I was a child.
I stopped believing in the rotating Earth when "The Princple" and "Galileo Was Wrong" movies came out several years ago. I never knew, before those movies, that scientists have tried to prove the earth moved for centuries and kept failing, and even proving the opposite without wanting to!
Yes, there are steps involved, but each step requires keeping an open mind and not simply "trusting" what we've been told by the "authorities". Once you toss the credibility of NASA (moon landings, etc.) and move to geocentrism, both contrary to the claims of the established scientific orthodoxy, it should be much simpler to evaluate FE claims on their own merits.
-
I never knew, before those movies, that scientists have tried to prove the earth moved for centuries and kept failing, and even proving the opposite without wanting to!
That was my experience. I just assumed the earth was spinning and flying through space because I'd been told that it was since I was born. No one ever mentioned that large body of tests which tried to determine the speed and rotation but all came back as Nil. As Michelson said (paraphrase), 'the data contradicted our presupposed idea that the earth moved.' I guess he would know. lol
-
Right, because you say so.
Oops, my bad. It's a great video because flat feathers say so, and they know best. ::)
Nonsense. You set out hostile to FE and refusing to look at it with an open mind. At least be honest with yourself.
Be honest with yourself and admit you are judging my intentions. "Judge not..."
There's no way I could have come to the edge of falling into your step 4 of thinking FE is probably true if I hadn't honestly given it a fair and thorough chance. FE raises come good questions, but it's very insufficient. The best you have is line of sight arguments.
Its stupid with regards to the original post. A guy sets out to see how far he can see, to then film himself at that long distance from locations he knows he can be seen from, in a valley of all places. He didn't just choose some random location and try to see if his camera could see something that should be hidden behind the curve. You may be onto something with the laser over water videos, but that was not a smart post.
-
I'd bet the moon landings happened and that the Earth is round. But what do I know? Not much on these two issues.
I do notice that Jews aren't at all bothered by flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers. Bart Sibrel is a jew who thinks the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened. It would be interesting to investigate people who believe the earth is flat and that the moon landings were fake and see how easily they are manipulated by jews.
I once asked Ladislaus to refer me to an expert on the earth being flat. He mentioned some anonymous dude who claims to have a PhD. Surely there are better people than this.
-
I'd bet the moon landings happened and that the Earth is round. But what do I know? Not much on these two issues.
I do notice that Jews aren't at all bothered by flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers. Bart Sibrel is a jew who thinks the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened. It would be interesting to investigate people who believe the earth is flat and that the moon landings were fake and see how easily they are manipulated by jews.
I once asked Ladislaus to refer me to an expert on the earth being flat. He mentioned some anonymous dude who claims to have a PhD. Surely there are better people than this.
There are many experts out there in various fields, from former F-16 pilots, those who worked on targeting systems on submarines and aircraft carriers. Dr. John D does have a Ph. D. in spectrometry, and JTolan used to work on satellite systems. They're out there, but you just actually have to look.
But you're hung up on "experts" when most of the so-called experts tells us that we evolved from monkeys, which in turn ultimately came from a primordial slime, after a Big Bang, and that we're hurtling through space on a ball at many thousands of miles per second. They also told everyone that the jab was "safe and effective".
As for Jews not being bothered by FE, which appears to be your only litmus test for anything, you present a single anecdotal sample of Sibrel, but neglect to consider that Jewgle and Jewtube are ruthlessly censoring FE and returning almost exclusively links to debunking efforts in their search engines. Not all Jews are "in on" everything, as we have many Jews even in Israel opposing the Jєωιѕн action in Gaza, and there are even a handful that have studied and rejected the h0Ɩ0cαųst. I recently saw a video of a Jєωιѕн guy who went to Auschwitz (wearing yarmulke and all) who ended up completely debunking the notion that any Jews were deliberately exterminated there.
-
There are many experts out there in various fields, from former F-16 pilots, those who worked on targeting systems on submarines and aircraft carriers. Dr. John D does have a Ph. D. in spectrometry, and JTolan used to work on satellite systems. They're out there, but you just actually have to look.
But you're hung up on "experts" when most of the so-called experts tells us that we evolved from monkeys, which in turn ultimately came from a primordial slime, after a Big Bang, and that we're hurtling through space on a ball at many thousands of miles per second. They also told everyone that the jab was "safe and effective".
As for Jews not being bothered by FE, which appears to be your only litmus test for anything, you present a single anecdotal sample of Sibrel, but neglect to consider that Jewgle and Jewtube are ruthlessly censoring FE and returning almost exclusively links to debunking efforts in their search engines. Not all Jews are "in on" everything, as we have many Jews even in Israel opposing the Jєωιѕн action in Gaza, and there are even a handful that have studied and rejected the h0Ɩ0cαųst. I recently saw a video of a Jєωιѕн guy who went to Auschwitz (wearing yarmulke and all) who ended up completely debunking the notion that any Jews were deliberately exterminated there.
It's old news that there are jews on opposite sides of issues. They're all trash. It doesn't matter if they're zionist or anti-zionist and it doesn't matter if they say the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened or not. Roger Guy-Dommergue is often trotted out as an example of a "good jew" who debunks the h0Ɩ0cαųst. There are no good jews. They're all trash. They like to control both sides of any issue. Ron Unz is a fraud. So is David Stein/Cole. According to Leuchter he and Zundel agreed, in the late-80s, that Cole was an infiltrator, but Zundel decided Cole was useful for getting h0Ɩ0cαųst revisionism publicity. Dumb move on Zundel's part. He shouldn't have been so desperate.
Please give me a top 10 list of the most impressive experts on the earth being flat.
-
You may be onto something with the laser over water videos...
Several of those exist and are recorded at minimal height. What would that suggest or does that suggest anything? Could you call that a demonstrable proof?
-
That's been dealt with very simply. You just don't want to see it. There's a certain window of a few minutes where the very West of Australia, the East of South America, and of course South Africa are all in darkness, and where they could see the Southern Cross at the same time. This isn't even particularly difficult.
I'm sorry for not properly articulating the difficulty FE has with the Southern Cross. In order for it to be viewed it surely must be night time in all three places and I agree it is but the distance involved cannot be overcome. How can the Southern Cross be seen south of three points on the outside rim of the FE when looking south from any of them is looking 120° away from the other two? And on top of it they would be some 20,000 miles apart which means the sun is closer but it can't be seen but the same stars are seen?
-
You just don't want to see it.
With all due respect, how could you know this and what competency do you have to judge?
-
I'm sorry for not properly articulating the difficulty FE has with the Southern Cross. In order for it to be viewed it surely must be night time in all three places and I agree it is but the distance involved cannot be overcome. How can the Southern Cross be seen south of three points on the outside rim of the FE when looking south from any of them is looking 120° away from the other two? And on top of it they would be some 20,000 miles apart which means the sun is closer but it can't be seen but the same stars are seen?
How can the distances not be overcome? We're talking about a difference of a few thousand miles between the point. Modern science claims that they're millions of miles away. Even at a distance of some thousands of miles away a few thousand miles (I haven't done the calculations) shouldn't make a difference. What should be compared is the location / angle of the Southern cross from different vantage points, i.e if it's due South from South Africa, then where in the sky does it appear from a certain point in South America, and then from Australia and are the consistent ... on those few occasions that it may be viewable from all three locations at the same time? It doesn't matter that the continents are looking 120 degrees away form one another. What matters is the orientation of the viewer and where in the sky the Southern Cross appears. I can stand in the middle of my yard and rotate 360 degrees.
-
The Crux circles the in the night sky 30° from due south, at all times and everywhere that it can be seen.
Using the Gleason map, draw a line from the North Pole, through the observer at the bottom of those three continents, and continue the line to the map edge. The observer needs to have his back to the North Pole and look down the line to the map edge to be looking south. The Crux is in the night sky inside 30° of his line of sight so, south of the observer draw a 60° circle (hint: that's 1/6 of the total circuмference of the earth each). Now draw that same circle for the other two continents and those circles are not all coincident. Not even close. They don't even touch. There is no time of night where it could be the same stars.
The distance is a separate issue. If they are the same stars somehow, and they are currently over South America (because they rotate in the firmament) how could Australia see them as those two observers are almost 35,000 miles apart on the Gleason map. The sun itself can only be 12,000 miles from Australia at the farthest but at that distance it is hidden (night). How does a star appear 30,000 miles away when the sun can't appear 12,000 miles?
Also, how is it that the Crux circles in the sky at all? It should follow the firmament and rotate once per day the entire circuмference of the earth and appear to rise and set like the sun and moon.
Good night and God bless,
JoeZ
-
Several of those exist and are recorded at minimal height. What would that suggest or does that suggest anything? Could you call that a demonstrable proof?
They certainly get credit for their effort. I don't have any positive doubt as to the honestly of their intentions, but they only prove that a laser can be seen in those circuмstances. It's hard enough work to accomplish what they did, but they should thoroughly try to discredit their own experiment as FE proof to see if it holds up as certain FE proof. Rule out any other possible variable. If I tried, I could probably think of a good 20 more experiments to use to test how trustworthy the long distance laser experiment is. Then, it would be a question of whether it is cheaper and easier just to send a long distance sounding rocket with cameras and transmitter into a polar orbit. It seems obvious that a laser can be trusted, but both light and laser beams are not as straight and simple as most believe, kind of like the pope situation.
-
We know NASA that with it's fake spinning composite imagery for sure doesn't cut it but two way lasers over water don't either...
What's the experiment everyone would agree on as a proof?
-
When the subject of Flat Earth recently came up in a conversation, a liberal professor of biology at a local college said to one of my friends that Flat Earth was "total nonsense" and supplied a video to him full of questions about it, saying "the day the Flat Earthers can answer these questions is the day I will agree with them." Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsy5u8LkP-Q
What are the answers to the questions? Thanks.
-
I heard a string of statements but no questions.
-
We know NASA that with it's fake spinning composite imagery for sure doesn't cut it but two way lasers over water don't either...
What's the experiment everyone would agree on as a proof?
Maybe a live feed from a polar orbiting sounding rocket. But NASA and Musk fake rocket videos all the time...
...so I'll just throw that back at anyone who doesn't want to believe videos by saying that, maybe I don't believe your FE proof videos are real.
-
When the subject of Flat Earth recently came up in a conversation, a liberal professor of biology at a local college said to one of my friends that Flat Earth was "total nonsense" and supplied a video to him full of questions about it, saying "the day the Flat Earthers can answer these questions is the day I will agree with them." Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsy5u8LkP-Q
What are the answers to the questions? Thanks.
There's only one objection in the video and it's that supposedly 70,000 people worldwide would have to be lying about the shape of the Earth. That's not a particularly strong objection nor is it well-supported.
Not everyone in a space agency need be in on it, actually only a few people at the top are much more manageable.
It's really not an issue at all to keep people believing what 99% of people believe.
But let's even assume there are 100,000 people in on it, there's plenty of ʝʊdɛօmasons sworn to secrecy and Epstein blackmailed useful idiots to go around and we know the famous actornauts are freemasons. Not to mention the whole "scientific community" is in on a conspiracy to suppress the truth about creation, vaccines, etc.
Globers have much bigger problems, for example, where's the firmament separating the waters mentioned in the Bible over a hundred times?
How can we see hundreds of miles?
Then there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFz4ZZd1zj4
If you want to know the truth there's plenty of material on this channel alone.
Cheers.
-
Credo ut intelligam.
What you're missing is that no current FE started off by believing that earth is flat. We've all been indoctrinated into globe earth. It took me personally 2 years of going through the evidence and arguments from both sides, before I became an FE, rather reluctantly. Many of the current FEs actually set out to debunk it and then became convinced they had been wrong.
My personal process:
1) I think it's ridiculous, but because I deliberately keep an open mind, I'll have a look (based on posts that the FEs made in that sub-forum). I can't just dismiss it and write it off while knowing very little about the case they're trying to make.
2) Hmmm, this isn't as ridiculous as I thought. There may be SOMEthing to it. Let me dig some more.
3) Wow, I'm starting to think they might be right. I can't believe this.
4) I lean FE (as I posted in the sub-forum)
5) I'm completely convinced.
This process took two years, and the one thing you have to already know to be able to successfully navigate through this is that the government lies like it's going out of style. I already knew that the moon landings were a complete hoax, so it wasn't that much of a stretch to believe that NASA might be lying about other stuff as well.
Ladislaus, I just found this post. All I ask is for you to give others the same courtesy that you gave yourself. I have only been looking at flat earth on and off since November and like I have said in past posts I am a hard sell.
One thing is that refraction is not an easy calculation, there are so many variables that need to be looked at and we don't have an accurate way to measure them for long distances.
-
Why do you believe in refraction if it’s not reliable? Isn’t that anti-scientific method?
-
I said it is a complicated equation, which I would have to learn first and then use.
It is also hard to recreate on demand. You would have to know exactly what the light was passing through and how warm or cold the air was. These would have to be gathered at the time of any picture, but it is not. So we don't have all of the variables to calculate it.
Random thoughts:
Looking at the moon and stars is less complicated, because there is less atmospher to look through. We may clearly see planes overheadb which are 5 miles above us, but not a boat on the water that is 3 miles away.
At the horizon the sun and the moon don't have constant sizes like they do when they are over head. There shape is determined by atmosphere pollution and the temp of the land between me and the object I am looking at.
-
I said it is a complicated equation, which I would have to learn first and then use.
This is your first sign that the explanation is a farce.
It is also hard to recreate on demand.
Sign #2.
Something which is so complicated to figure out, and hard to recreate, does not sound like a fact, but a theory. A fact is an easily observable, readily reproduceable, phenomenon. Whenever anything is "too complicated" that's a sign you're being lied to.
Similar to how "c0vid" (a respiratory virus) has morphed into "long c0vid", to explain all manner of increases in cancer, heart disease, strokes, etc. "Long c0vid" is super "complicated" and it varies person to person, and it's hard to determine what effects the vax (er, I mean virus) has on people.
Yet people fall for these lies everyday. They have refused God as their guide, so he has let them follow and be deceived by tyrants and evildoers.
-
Ladislaus, I just found this post. All I ask is for you to give others the same courtesy that you gave yourself. I have only been looking at flat earth on and off since November and like I have said in past posts I am a hard sell.
I'm not sure what "courtesy" I gave myself. I was just explaining the progression of my thought. Certainly I receive no courtesies from most globe earthers, who subject me (and others who are FE) to derision and ridicule. So, despite your claims to just be a "hard sell", your posts show clear evidence of confirmation bias so that it's clear you're not approaching the matter with a completely open mind. If you're interested in the truth, you need to perform the thought experiment of forgetting that you think/believe that the earth is a globe and that NASA ever existed, and then go from there. But that's clearly not the approach you're taking.
In any case, only intellectual dishonesty can simply dismiss the mountains of evidence in favor of FE and falsifying the globe model.
-
Bottom line here is that there have been myriad experiments performed where no curvature can be found (where things that should be hidden behind thounsands of feet and even miles of curvature can be seen very clearly).
There are only two ways to address these --
1) claim that it's all fabricated or
2) assert "refraction"
In terms of fabrication, many of the long-distance photos that defy globe math were taken by pro photographers who are not FE and weren't considering the globe-shattering implications of their photos. Some were certified / validated by various organizations as having set various long-distance photography records. In addition, many of the experiments (including the most solid ones by Dr. John D) were announced beforehand, live-streamed, and witnesses were invited to participate. Finally, some of it would require CGI skills that are beyond the skills of the average video-maker and there are too many people who've made videos, taken photos, etc.
In terms of "refraction", light can bend downwards when it encounters increasing density (generally due to humidity, moisture in the atmosphere or, less so, except where it affects humidity, temperature changes). But two-way laser experiments performed in public by Dr. John D, wherein he also took meticulous measurements of humidity, temperature, etc. at several points along the way, completely debunk this phenomenon, since the lasers going in opposite directions were at the same elevation and just a few feet apart and with negligible humidity and temperature changes along the route that couldn't possibly account for "refraction". He also performed his experiments when it was relatively cold out and with low humidity to minimize any chances for atmospheric distortions. In order for refraction to work both ways, if there were a continually-increasing density in one direction, it would be continually decreasing in the opposite direction, causing the light to refract up, if anything, and not be visible. Finally, refraction simply cannot produce images with the clarity we see them from miles away, since you'd have to have an absolutely consistent rate of refraction the entire way. If during any part of these stretches of many miles the change of rate in terms of density were to change slightly, different things would refract into each other along the stretch and cause major distortion. Dr. John D made videos of various wind turbines at something like 6, 7, 8, and 10 miles from his vantage point and they all follow a consistent line that would result from perspective, without any distortion from refraction.
Unless some globe proponent could explain why the earth almost consistently tries to "hide" the alleged curvature using some other explanation where light would consistently bend exactly around the globe ... refraction is worthless, dead in the water, and an act of desperation for the globers to salvage their model, throwing the word out there without proof that it's actually taking place, combining that with begging the question.
-
This is your first sign that the explanation is a farce.
Sign #2.
Something which is so complicated to figure out, and hard to recreate, does not sound like a fact, but a theory. A fact is an easily observable, readily reproduceable, phenomenon. Whenever anything is "too complicated" that's a sign you're being lied to.
Similar to how "c0vid" (a respiratory virus) has morphed into "long c0vid", to explain all manner of increases in cancer, heart disease, strokes, etc. "Long c0vid" is super "complicated" and it varies person to person, and it's hard to determine what effects the vax (er, I mean virus) has on people.
Yet people fall for these lies everyday. They have refused God as their guide, so he has let them follow and be deceived by tyrants and evildoers.
Here is a page that talks about refraction calculations.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Deriving+Equations+for+Atmospheric+Refraction
I have no idea what the page is saying, so I would have to learn it first.
If you understand the page, please explain it to me.
-
Bottom line here is that there have been myriad experiments performed where no curvature can be found (where things that should be hidden behind thounsands of feet and even miles of curvature can be seen very clearly).
There are only two ways to address these --
1) claim that it's all fabricated or
2) assert "refraction"
In terms of fabrication, many of the long-distance photos that defy globe math were taken by pro photographers who are not FE and weren't considering the globe-shattering implications of their photos. Some were certified / validated by various organizations as having set various long-distance photography records. In addition, many of the experiments (including the most solid ones by Dr. John D) were announced beforehand, live-streamed, and witnesses were invited to participate. Finally, some of it would require CGI skills that are beyond the skills of the average video-maker and there are too many people who've made videos, taken photos, etc.
In terms of "refraction", light can bend downwards when it encounters increasing density (generally due to humidity, moisture in the atmosphere or, less so, except where it affects humidity, temperature changes). But two-way laser experiments performed in public by Dr. John D, wherein he also took meticulous measurements of humidity, temperature, etc. at several points along the way, completely debunk this phenomenon, since the lasers going in opposite directions were at the same elevation and just a few feet apart and with negligible humidity and temperature changes along the route that couldn't possibly account for "refraction". He also performed his experiments when it was relatively cold out and with low humidity to minimize any chances for atmospheric distortions. In order for refraction to work both ways, if there were a continually-increasing density in one direction, it would be continually decreasing in the opposite direction, causing the light to refract up, if anything, and not be visible. Finally, refraction simply cannot produce images with the clarity we see them from miles away, since you'd have to have an absolutely consistent rate of refraction the entire way. If during any part of these stretches of many miles the change of rate in terms of density were to change slightly, different things would refract into each other along the stretch and cause major distortion. Dr. John D made videos of various wind turbines at something like 6, 7, 8, and 10 miles from his vantage point and they all follow a consistent line that would result from perspective, without any distortion from refraction.
Unless some globe proponent could explain why the earth almost consistently tries to "hide" the alleged curvature using some other explanation where light would consistently bend exactly around the globe ... refraction is worthless, dead in the water, and an act of desperation for the globers to salvage their model, throwing the word out there without proof that it's actually taking place, combining that with begging the question.
So show me these videos. I can't find them. Even when I search for Dr. John D on CathInfo.
-
If you understand the page, please explain it to me.
:laugh1: I cannot explain a hoax.
In survey it is important to know how much light gets bent to be able to correct the observed height of a distant object for Refraction effects.
Why does light ONLY get bent right above the surface of the earth and nowhere else? Why does light not get bent in a fog? or when it rains? Why does light not get bent underwater (one can clearly see sun light rays underwater and they are straight)?
If 'refraction' were true, it would seem that in any conditions where there is a lot of moisture, that light would behave erratically and unpredictably, depending on the temperature, the amount of light, etc. If rain happens in the morning, light would shine differently than if rain happened at evening...also spring vs fall, and summer vs winter, etc.
Light from the sun should be bouncing all around us, and creating all sorts of mirages and hallucinogenic visions, as water/rain/mist/fog changes the light and causes it to change directions, or magnify some things or not. And all of this would be different if the temperature were in the 30s, or 40s, or 60s or 90s.
But none of this is observable. We see no distortion of light when the temperature gets cold vs hot. We see no distortion of rain, or mirages on land (close up), or any other refraction (close up). The closest thing we see to a distortion of light/rain is a rainbow, often in the distance. But we can repeatedly recreate a rainbow using a hose and sunlight, for scientists have a clear understanding of why rainbows exist, and the factors that lead to them.
But there is no understanding of 'refraction', and it cannot be recreated. Nor do we see mini-refractions during changes in seasons or weather conditions, or temperatures.
It's a lie.
-
:laugh1: I cannot explain a hoax.
Why does light ONLY get bent right above the surface of the earth and nowhere else? Why does light not get bent in a fog? or when it rains? Why does light not get bent underwater (one can clearly see sun light rays underwater and they are straight)?
If 'refraction' were true, it would seem that in any conditions where there is a lot of moisture, that light would behave erratically and unpredictably, depending on the temperature, the amount of light, etc. If rain happens in the morning, light would shine differently than if rain happened at evening...also spring vs fall, and summer vs winter, etc.
Light from the sun should be bouncing all around us, and creating all sorts of mirages and hallucinogenic visions, as water/rain/mist/fog changes the light and causes it to change directions, or magnify some things or not. And all of this would be different if the temperature were in the 30s, or 40s, or 60s or 90s.
But none of this is observable. We see no distortion of light when the temperature gets cold vs hot. We see no distortion of rain, or mirages on land (close up), or any other refraction (close up). The closest thing we see to a distortion of light/rain is a rainbow, often in the distance. But we can repeatedly recreate a rainbow using a hose and sunlight, for scientists have a clear understanding of why rainbows exist, and the factors that lead to them.
But there is no understanding of 'refraction', and it cannot be recreated. Nor do we see mini-refractions during changes in seasons or weather conditions, or temperatures.
It's a lie.
I do find the Flat Earth experiments quite convincing, and I don't believe that refraction can explain them, but it does exist.
You can see it quite clearly on a swimming pool. Pools usually look shallower than they are because of refraction.
Considering how much water a pool has and the refraction observed, it does not seem plausible that what we see in the experiments can justify a round Earth based on refraction alone. It would take some calculations to convince me, but as I am quite bad on the exact sciences, I would probably be unable to understand it.
As I see it, the burden of the proof in on the round Earth people. If what we see is due to refraction, we need to see numbers and calculations. I know enough to understand that these calculations are simple for people who have a reasonable knowledge of Physics and the required data avaliable.
Refraction seems to be quite pronounced when we are dealing with different "enviroments". When light travels from water to air, there quite a distortion, as in the swimming pool example I mentioned. When we are dealing with moisture in the air, it apparently does not happen, or happens very slightly. Otherwise, we would notice it right away.
-
So show me these videos. I can't find them. Even when I search for Dr. John D on CathInfo.
OK. I'll try to find them. That's one of the problems, where Google/Youtube have been censoring the content of FE sites and you can only find the debunking sites if you search. That's actually another indicator in favor of FE, since when in the history of Google/Youtube have they been out to serve the interests of mankind and protect them from error? I'll try to find them.
-
So show me these videos. I can't find them. Even when I search for Dr. John D on CathInfo.
Here you go. There's a link in there to Dr. John's channel with all his videos. He has his Ph.D. in Spectrometry. As I point out, he isn't one of the big "names" in FE precisely because his videos are long and, well, "boring" by modern standards. But they're very boring because he's doing all the sciency stuff.
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/dr-john-d-destroys-globe-earth/
-
Thank you.
-
Here you go. There's a link in there to Dr. John's channel with all his videos. He has his Ph.D. in Spectrometry. As I point out, he isn't one of the big "names" in FE precisely because his videos are long and, well, "boring" by modern standards. But they're very boring because he's doing all the sciency stuff.
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/dr-john-d-destroys-globe-earth/
These curvature questions do give me pause. And some day I will just have to do these experiments myself.
The video below concerns me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uw1IY67a6Q (warning the video has a picture of natives barely clothed) by Dr. John D. Maybe he has been hacked.
Density equals mass divided by volume. This is how you get a 1 inch cube of something (copper, aluminum, wood, etc) and they all weigh different for the same size.
The video I referenced shows Dr. John D showing that all of that is just an imagination. What is the point of that? It makes him not a reliable scientist. I know you think that I am nit picking and going off topic, but it makes him lose some of his credibility.
At this point maybe science doesn't exist at all and everything we know is just some illusion demons want us to see. Maybe God didn't give us a discoverable world. Maybe computers are just demon machines that cause us all to sin.
Sorry I am having a melancholic spiral episode, so I will just back away from this topic for awhile.
May God bless you and keep you all.
-
The video I referenced shows Dr. John D showing that all of that is just an imagination. What is the point of that? It makes him not a reliable scientist.
No, what he meant was, sometimes science makes things too complicated (he means this from a practical standpoint). So he says the creation of the term "atom" is a type of imagination, because we should (from a practical standpoint) simply call it a "small particle of copper" or a "small particle of wood". He says that we can't see atoms, so that by reducing 2 different items (copper vs wood) into the same thing (an atom), this is just imagination.
He has a point, from a practical point of view. But from a scientific/THEORETICAL point of view, the term/concept of atom is very valuable.
I wouldn't put much weight into his opinion on this. It wouldn't affect any other of his views, assuming such are backed by facts.
-
No, what he meant was, sometimes science makes things too complicated (he means this from a practical standpoint). So he says the creation of the term "atom" is a type of imagination, because we should (from a practical standpoint) simply call it a "small particle of copper" or a "small particle of wood". He says that we can't see atoms, so that by reducing 2 different items (copper vs wood) into the same thing (an atom), this is just imagination.
He has a point, from a practical point of view. But from a scientific/THEORETICAL point of view, the term/concept of atom is very valuable.
I wouldn't put much weight into his opinion on this. It wouldn't affect any other of his views, assuming such are backed by facts.
Thank you for the explanation.
-
I wouldn't put much weight into his opinion on this. It wouldn't affect any other of his views, assuming such are backed by facts.
:facepalm: Are you serious? The guy is either a nut or a charlatan. Talk about confirmation bias. Do you do experiments yourself to confirm his “facts” about FE? Have you ever looked at the moon through a telescope? Have you actually gone to a large body of water with a telescope to see for yourself if what “Dr.” John D. is presenting is true?
-
These curvature questions do give me pause. And some day I will just have to do these experiments myself.
The video below concerns me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uw1IY67a6Q (warning the video has a picture of natives barely clothed) by Dr. John D. Maybe he has been hacked.
Density equals mass divided by volume. This is how you get a 1 inch cube of something (copper, aluminum, wood, etc) and they all weigh different for the same size.
The video I referenced shows Dr. John D showing that all of that is just an imagination. What is the point of that? It makes him not a reliable scientist. I know you think that I am nit picking and going off topic, but it makes him lose some of his credibility.
At this point maybe science doesn't exist at all and everything we know is just some illusion demons want us to see. Maybe God didn't give us a discoverable world. Maybe computers are just demon machines that cause us all to sin.
Sorry I am having a melancholic spiral episode, so I will just back away from this topic for awhile.
May God bless you and keep you all.
Grey, thank you for pointing this out.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif) Are you serious? The guy is either a nut or a charlatan. Talk about confirmation bias. Do you do experiments yourself to confirm his “facts” about FE? Have you ever looked at the moon through a telescope? Have you actually gone to a large body of water with a telescope to see for yourself if what “Dr.” John D. is presenting is true?
You are the king of tangents and putting words into people's mouths. And also of horrible reading comprehension.
Nothing I said was an endorsement of John D, or of any of his views. Neither did I say I agreed with his video(s).
Take a couple of DEEP breaths before you post, re-read what people wrote, and then respond.
-
You are the king of tangents and putting words into people's mouths. And also of horrible reading comprehension.
Nothing I said was an endorsement of John D, or of any of his views. Neither did I say I agreed with his video(s).
Take a couple of DEEP breaths before you post, re-read what people wrote, and then respond.
Since you agree with him on FE, and don’t try to wiggle out of what you were alluding to, have you done any experiments yourself to confirm his “facts” about FE? Have you ever looked at the moon through a telescope? Have you actually gone to a large body of water with a telescope to see for yourself if what “Dr.” John D. is presenting is true?
-
:facepalm: I've never seen someone get so bent out of shape on a topic that is non-faith related. You need to take a break, man. You're losing it.
-
:facepalm: I've never seen someone get so bent out of shape on a topic that is non-faith related. You need to take a break, man. You're losing it.
:laugh2: Seriously, seriously? The only people bent out of shape are you dogmatic FEers. My only concern is that you people are making traditional Catholics look like clowns. None of you are scientifically minded. Frankly, just by reading your posts you aren’t even in the same league as you confreres on the topic, although you’ve never impressed me on any other subject you’ve posted on either. When you say things like the Sun is a spotlight, I’m truly embarrassed for you. I’ll give you a tip, buy a telescope or pair of binoculars and start by looking at the moon. Remember, don’t look directly at the “spotlight” as it may blind you, you need a filter. :laugh1:
-
:facepalm: I've never seen someone get so bent out of shape on a topic that is non-faith related. You need to take a break, man. You're losing it.
Yes, this type of reaction is very revealing.
If some guy came on here and started claiming that the earth is shaped like a donut, I'd do the old circle by the ear gesture while whistling and then move along. But I would hardly get this bent out of shape, nor would I spend inordinate amounts of time refuting it, as something without evidence for it hardly requires refutation.
So, two factors have to be in play to elicit this type of reaction:
1) there has to be a solid and credible case for FE. If I claimed donut shape, as per above, people would not be bent out of shape or hostile because there's no credible evidence for this.
2) there has to be some deep-seeded psychological attachment to the globe. This is due to the programming, where individuals had to do violence to their common sense in order to accept what their trusted "authorities" were telling them. There's a huge amount of discomfort created when having to be deprogrammed from some kind of cult-like indoctrination.
Were it not for both of these being in play, we'd just get blown off, ignored, and relegated to the fringe. Nobody would waste this kind of time arguing with people who were obviously unhinged and unbalanced.
-
although you’ve never impressed me on any other subject you’ve posted on either.
You probably didn't understand what I wrote. Your reading comprehension is sub-par at best.
p.s. Please explain where the firmament is in the globe earth, so you can avoid being a heretic.
-
My only concern is that you people are making traditional Catholics look like clowns.
Riiight ... this kind of statement exposes clearly how you're considering the question with "intellectual honesty" and "an open mind".
To paraphrase St. Thomas' quote about the "pigs flying," I'd rather be a clown (a fool for Christ) and considered such by the world than to reject the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and become a Modernist heretic. We're "fools for Christ" on all kinds of matters over which the world will ridicule us, but our primary concern and focus is the TRUTH, without any regard for your snowflakish human respect, which is very pathetic and effeminate. You determine what's true first and then worry about what people think afterwards. Most people have a negative opinion of Trad Catholics due to what many of us believe about the Jews and the h0Ɩ0h0αx ... and yet I don't see you excoriating such people on this forum.
You're the clown, and your behavior is at once pathetic and disturbingly effeminate.
I'm fine with people who honestly aren't convinced that the earth is flat, provided they come up with a non-heretical explanation for the firmament described by Sacred Scripture, but I'm not fine with the intellectually dishonest who put their feeble minds on display by being unable to consider the question objectively and with an open mind. I've got no respect for the likes of you, and I'm quite frankly embarrassed for you.
-
You probably didn't understand what I wrote. Your reading comprehension is sub-par at best.
p.s. Please explain where the firmament is in the globe earth, so you can avoid being a heretic.
Come on, I can believe in the firmament and not have to understand it or explain how it works, just like I believe in the Holy Trinity and not have to explain that mystery. That’s theology 101. But you have the issue of either believing some bozo on YouTube or your lying eyes.
You don’t have to spend a 1000+ dollars on a Nikon P1000 and lie about not knowing how to use it, simply buy an inexpensive $50 telescope or binoculars.
-
Come on, I can believe in the firmament and not have to understand it or explain how it works, just like I believe in the Holy Trinity and not have to explain that mystery. That’s theology 101. But you have the issue of either believing some bozo on YouTube or your lying eyes.
Oh my. Your lack of logic is breathtaking. Let's unpack the above.
Come on, I can believe in the firmament and not have to understand it or explain how it works, just like I believe in the Holy Trinity and not have to explain that mystery.
1. So you're equating the firmament (a natural aspect of the physical universe) with a supernatural mystery? :laugh1:
2. Why can't I believe that the earth has 4 corners, has a foundation, and doesn't move (all part of Scripture) without having to explain how it works?
3. Why does the firmament get a pass on explanation but FE doesn't?
That’s theology 101. But you have the issue of either believing some bozo on YouTube or your lying eyes.
Why should I trust the lying, atheist, anti-catholic, bozos in "Science", if my eyes tell me the earth is not spinning through space and there is no curvature of the earth, nor does water curve, etc.
-
Oh my. Your lack of logic is breathtaking. Let's unpack the above.
1. So you're equating the firmament (a natural aspect of the physical universe) with a supernatural mystery? :laugh1:
2. Why can't I believe that the earth has 4 corners, has a foundation, and doesn't move (all part of Scripture) without having to explain how it works?
3. Why does the firmament get a pass on explanation but FE doesn't?
Why should I trust the lying, atheist, anti-catholic, bozos in "Science", if my eyes tell me the earth is not spinning through space and there is no curvature of the earth, nor does water curve, etc.
My analogy is strikingly good, it’s very sad that you fail to grasp it. Secondly, why don’t you trust the truth telling, Catholic, GE believing scientists who vastly outnumber the FE bozos?
-
For things you can’t explain, it’s a supernatural mystery. For things I can’t explain “no working model = failure”.
:laugh2: You can’t make this stuff up.
-
For things you can’t explain, it’s a supernatural mystery. For things I can’t explain “no working model = failure”.
:laugh2: You can’t make this stuff up.
THIS ^^^
We're just wasting time here. These guys are not going to change their minds since they're not looking with an open mind.
We're in "Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't." mode here and have been for a very long time. If someone is truly interested, they can find what they need out there, or, rather, they can ask for good links to go look at as Jewgle and Jewtube suppress the information more and more.
-
For things you can’t explain, it’s a supernatural mystery. For things I can’t explain “no working model = failure”.
:laugh2: You can’t make this stuff up.
You can’t possibly be that thick, can you?
You asked me to: “Please explain where the firmament is in the globe earth, so you can avoid being a heretic.”.
I told you I don’t need to explain something in order to believe in a truth of faith. I used as an example the Blessed Trinity. I believe in the mystery but can’t completely explain it. I believe in the Firmament but I’m not quite sure how it works with the global model. In past posts I imbedded drawings that incorporated the Firmament in the GE model. For centuries 99.9%+ of intelligent Catholic’s believed in a GE with a Firmament.
You are pushing the FE theory as being nearly dogmatic, if not outright dogmatic. I DON’T contend that GE is dogmatic, I’m just saying that FE is preposterous and has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. If you believe in FE, you maybe a clown, but you’re not a heretic.
You and the egghead are the biggest gaslighters on here?
-
I believe in the Firmament but I’m not quite sure how it works with the global model.
Ok, so there's no "catholic working model" of the globe.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: That's the ENTIRE point of FE. To search for a "catholic working model" of the earth, because the current globe model is heretical. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
-
Ok, so there's no "catholic working model" of the globe.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: That's the ENTIRE point of FE. To search for a "catholic working model" of the earth, because the current globe model is heretical. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
Just unbelievable! :facepalm:
-
You probably didn't understand what I wrote. Your reading comprehension is sub-par at best.
p.s. Please explain where the firmament is in the globe earth, so you can avoid being a heretic.
(https://i.imgur.com/2DueWBr.jpeg)
-
Your picture doesn’t show any details of the sun, moon? Not a working model.
1. How did NASA go to the moon, if the firmament exists?
2. When NASA shows videos of earth, looking down from the space station, why is the earth not spinning at 66,000 miles per hour?
-
Your picture doesn’t show any details of the sun, moon? Not a working model.
1. How did NASA go to the moon, if the firmament exists?
2. When NASA shows videos of earth, looking down from the space station, why is the earth not spinning at 66,000 miles per hour?
How about this model:
(https://i.imgur.com/i9GJY3J.jpeg)
1)Non sequitur. What does going to the moon have to do with her model? I don’t believe we went to the Moon, but believe in a global Earth.
2) According to the conventual view, it’s due to the fact that they are in Earth’s orbit, thus the supposed speed wouldn't be noticeable. But, as a geocentric believer, I don’t believe the Earth is moving.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/2DueWBr.jpeg)
That’s similar to how I picture it, Grey. Thank you!
-
Your picture doesn’t show any details of the sun, moon? Not a working model.
1. How did NASA go to the moon, if the firmament exists?
2. When NASA shows videos of earth, looking down from the space station, why is the earth not spinning at 66,000 miles per hour?
Before I answer your questions. Here are the quotes from the bible that give me the picture I have in my head.
Genesis 1:7 "And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so."
So I picture a round earth that is stagnant with waters under the firmament and over the firmament. What is between these two waters can be anyone's guess, hard glass, a layer of pure oxygen, or something else.
Then we have the flood.
Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:"
I picture the water above the firmament falling on to earth. My assumption is that the firmament is a gas layer not a hard service. This is why rockets need a certain speed to go from our atmosphere through the firmament to space.
Heliocentric is on the left and geocentric is on the right. (just a random video, a little off topic)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeS8h1t-uMA
I picture the universe as a globe within a globe within a globe.
The center globe is the earth.
Around that is our atmosphere, with birds, planes, and clouds.
The firmament is here.
Around that is the moon's orbit.
Around that is the sun and planets.
Around that is the rest of space.
Now to answer your questions.
1) Did we go to the moon or not? If you believe that we didn't then, why ask this question. It doesn't really have to do with the shape of the earth. If we do believe that there is a space program, then to launch something past the atmosphere through the firmament, you have to do a bunch of calculations to figure that out. Which supposedly NASA has figured out, but I can neither confirm nor deny, because I am not an astrophysicist. Nor do I have the time to become one as a side hobby. :laugh1: (laughing at myself)
2) I am not sure where you get that earth is spinning 66000 miles an hour looking at it from the space station. First do you even believe there is a space station out there? Do we know for sure the earth is spinning?
I don't know why I keep engaging. :facepalm: (at me, not you)
-
QVD and Gray are asking important questions and bringing up important points. As a Flat Earther myself I like to see it challenged so that we can eventually get all the answers, can't really do that if it's not challenged.
Some Flat Earthers go into what I call "flattard" level and basically their whole premise for believing in FE is because NASA lies and the government hates us and maybe watching a few Eric Dugαy videos but seldom, if ever, scrutinize the FE information to make sure they are also not being duped by them. For instance, most FE'ers run with the formula for curvature with their drop of 8 inches per mile squared but do they actually know this is the correct calculation or do they just run with it because someone who's not a government agency says so? I've seen maths and evidences that there's a very complicated formula to actually determine this that is beyond my math skill level but it's not 8 in. per mile squared, but many FE'ers don't want to see it and will just scream "NASA SHILL!!!" That's just one thing but there are other examples of this kind of thing. I've seen fellow FE'ers claim we don't need a model but yeah we kind of do if we're going to figure out how this all works in a way that can be shown with actual maths and calculations and such. QVD has asked for this with a scale and is then met with mockery and ridicule. Disgusting.
Yes QVD we do need this to best make our case but as some flatters have said just because we don't have a good one yet doesn't by default make mainstream establishments ideas true. I was on the Tychonian (Globe) Geocentric Model for quite a while because it could be reconciled with Church Teaching and had the most support scientifically and I think if GE (huge if imo) is true then this is the best model to work with.
Both sides of this issue on this site are being rather condescending and snarky towards each other and it's really irritating to see. The big thing is that we must believe as taught by The Church and as long as we stay in that lane we are fine whether we adhere to a stationary geocentric globe model with a firmament or a stationary flat plane model with a firmament. As far as I know we don't have any hard line heliocentrists here but if there are they are in most need of correction and this constant bickering and snide remarks between people who are essentially holding to Church Teaching on the issue is really stupid.
Why don't we discuss ideas and different theories of how things can work or don't work and show evidence instead of the "you're a poo-poo head dummy!" "No! It is you who are the poo-poo head, you big oaf!" "oh yeah...well....well...your mom is fat!" This is about what we're sinking to here.
C'mon y'all let's get to business. Pax Vobis brought up the spotlight theory for sun (and moon assuming?) so maybe let's dig into this as grown adults and talk about how it could or couldn't work with ideas, calculations, etc. on how are how come not instead of just dismissing it outright or getting defensive and butthurt if our ideas are scrutinized. Or maybe let's see about creating a FE model with a scale that might work instead of the common AE model that doesn't seem to have a coherent one. Maybe let's talk about what we see in detail when looking through a telescope at the moon instead of just telling someone to go buy a telescope. Or maybe let's discuss why we can see the sun and moon at the same time in any given locale. So many things to ponder and work with guys!
-
QVD and Gray are asking important questions and bringing up important points. As a Flat Earther myself I like to see it challenged so that we can eventually get all the answers, can't really do that if it's not challenged.
Some Flat Earthers go into what I call "flattard" level and basically their whole premise for believing in FE is because NASA lies and the government hates us and maybe watching a few Eric Dugαy videos but seldom, if ever, scrutinize the FE information to make sure they are also not being duped by them. For instance, most FE'ers run with the formula for curvature with their drop of 8 inches per mile squared but do they actually know this is the correct calculation or do they just run with it because someone who's not a government agency says so? I've seen maths and evidences that there's a very complicated formula to actually determine this that is beyond my math skill level but it's not 8 in. per mile squared, but many FE'ers don't want to see it and will just scream "NASA SHILL!!!" That's just one thing but there are other examples of this kind of thing. I've seen fellow FE'ers claim we don't need a model but yeah we kind of do if we're going to figure out how this all works in a way that can be shown with actual maths and calculations and such. QVD has asked for this with a scale and is then met with mockery and ridicule. Disgusting.
Yes QVD we do need this to best make our case but as some flatters have said just because we don't have a good one yet doesn't by default make mainstream establishments ideas true. I was on the Tychonian (Globe) Geocentric Model for quite a while because it could be reconciled with Church Teaching and had the most support scientifically and I think if GE (huge if imo) is true then this is the best model to work with.
Both sides of this issue on this site are being rather condescending and snarky towards each other and it's really irritating to see. The big thing is that we must believe as taught by The Church and as long as we stay in that lane we are fine whether we adhere to a stationary geocentric globe model with a firmament or a stationary flat plane model with a firmament. As far as I know we don't have any hard line heliocentrists here but if there are they are in most need of correction and this constant bickering and snide remarks between people who are essentially holding to Church Teaching on the issue is really stupid.
Why don't we discuss ideas and different theories of how things can work or don't work and show evidence instead of the "you're a poo-poo head dummy!" "No! It is you who are the poo-poo head, you big oaf!" "oh yeah...well....well...your mom is fat!" This is about what we're sinking to here.
C'mon y'all let's get to business. Pax Vobis brought up the spotlight theory for sun (and moon assuming?) so maybe let's dig into this as grown adults and talk about how it could or couldn't work with ideas, calculations, etc. on how are how come not instead of just dismissing it outright or getting defensive and butthurt if our ideas are scrutinized. Or maybe let's see about creating a FE model with a scale that might work instead of the common AE model that doesn't seem to have a coherent one. Maybe let's talk about what we see in detail when looking through a telescope at the moon instead of just telling someone to go buy a telescope. Or maybe let's discuss why we can see the sun and moon at the same time in any given locale. So many things to ponder and work with guys!
Very good post. I agree with most of what you wrote here. I have no problem embracing the FE system if it can be shown to work, but every model that’s been posted has insurmountable errors and I can’t see, even remotely, how it could work. The GE model works almost flawlessly.
The Geocentric system works and may be more “clunkier” than the heliocentric system, but it does work and in a way is more elegant. I have no problem whatsoever going against any conventional line of thought, but what replaces it must be somewhat logical and work.
-
Before I answer your questions. Here are the quotes from the bible that give me the picture I have in my head.
Genesis 1:7 "And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so."
So I picture a round earth that is stagnant with waters under the firmament and over the firmament. What is between these two waters can be anyone's guess, hard glass, a layer of pure oxygen, or something else.
Then we have the flood.
Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:"
I picture the water above the firmament falling on to earth. My assumption is that the firmament is a gas layer not a hard service. This is why rockets need a certain speed to go from our atmosphere through the firmament to space.
Heliocentric is on the left and geocentric is on the right. (just a random video, a little off topic)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeS8h1t-uMA
I picture the universe as a globe within a globe within a globe.
The center globe is the earth.
Around that is our atmosphere, with birds, planes, and clouds.
The firmament is here.
Around that is the moon's orbit.
Around that is the sun and planets.
Around that is the rest of space.
Now to answer your questions.
1) Did we go to the moon or not? If you believe that we didn't then, why ask this question. It doesn't really have to do with the shape of the earth. If we do believe that there is a space program, then to launch something past the atmosphere through the firmament, you have to do a bunch of calculations to figure that out. Which supposedly NASA has figured out, but I can neither confirm nor deny, because I am not an astrophysicist. Nor do I have the time to become one as a side hobby. :laugh1: (laughing at myself)
2) I am not sure where you get that earth is spinning 66000 miles an hour looking at it from the space station. First do you even believe there is a space station out there? Do we know for sure the earth is spinning?
I don't know why I keep engaging. :facepalm: (at me, not you)
To spot the space station from your location follow this link https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/ The light you see is the reflexion from the sun. It's awesome to see it disappear instantly from view once it enters the "night side" of earth (evenings). If ir happens to be morning, it will suddenly appear in the sky.
-
To spot the space station from your location follow this link https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/ The light you see is the reflexion from the sun. It's awesome to see it disappear instantly from view once it enters the "night side" of earth (evenings). If ir happens to be morning, it will suddenly appear in the sky.
I just missed it by 4 minutes. I will check it out another time this week. I wonder how FEers explain this?
-
QVD and Gray are asking important questions and bringing up important points. As a Flat Earther myself I like to see it challenged so that we can eventually get all the answers, can't really do that if it's not challenged.
Some Flat Earthers go into what I call "flattard" level and basically their whole premise for believing in FE is because NASA lies and the government hates us and maybe watching a few Eric Dugαy videos but seldom, if ever, scrutinize the FE information to make sure they are also not being duped by them. For instance, most FE'ers run with the formula for curvature with their drop of 8 inches per mile squared but do they actually know this is the correct calculation or do they just run with it because someone who's not a government agency says so? I've seen maths and evidences that there's a very complicated formula to actually determine this that is beyond my math skill level but it's not 8 in. per mile squared, but many FE'ers don't want to see it and will just scream "NASA SHILL!!!" That's just one thing but there are other examples of this kind of thing. I've seen fellow FE'ers claim we don't need a model but yeah we kind of do if we're going to figure out how this all works in a way that can be shown with actual maths and calculations and such. QVD has asked for this with a scale and is then met with mockery and ridicule. Disgusting.
Yes QVD we do need this to best make our case but as some flatters have said just because we don't have a good one yet doesn't by default make mainstream establishments ideas true. I was on the Tychonian (Globe) Geocentric Model for quite a while because it could be reconciled with Church Teaching and had the most support scientifically and I think if GE (huge if imo) is true then this is the best model to work with.
Both sides of this issue on this site are being rather condescending and snarky towards each other and it's really irritating to see. The big thing is that we must believe as taught by The Church and as long as we stay in that lane we are fine whether we adhere to a stationary geocentric globe model with a firmament or a stationary flat plane model with a firmament. As far as I know we don't have any hard line heliocentrists here but if there are they are in most need of correction and this constant bickering and snide remarks between people who are essentially holding to Church Teaching on the issue is really stupid.
Why don't we discuss ideas and different theories of how things can work or don't work and show evidence instead of the "you're a poo-poo head dummy!" "No! It is you who are the poo-poo head, you big oaf!" "oh yeah...well....well...your mom is fat!" This is about what we're sinking to here.
C'mon y'all let's get to business. Pax Vobis brought up the spotlight theory for sun (and moon assuming?) so maybe let's dig into this as grown adults and talk about how it could or couldn't work with ideas, calculations, etc. on how are how come not instead of just dismissing it outright or getting defensive and butthurt if our ideas are scrutinized. Or maybe let's see about creating a FE model with a scale that might work instead of the common AE model that doesn't seem to have a coherent one. Maybe let's talk about what we see in detail when looking through a telescope at the moon instead of just telling someone to go buy a telescope. Or maybe let's discuss why we can see the sun and moon at the same time in any given locale. So many things to ponder and work with guys!
Well said! For some reason, the subject of the shape of the earth, and defending one's position on it, can cause a lot of contention. I used to sometimes get upset about it too. Those who believe that they must denigrate FE because it makes trads look stupid is not a good way to go about defending the ball earth, but it's also not a teaching of the Church that the earth is flat. So we are free to debate the subject, even though one or two here may not agree with that.
I can understand why some here believe in a ball earth. It's what we were all conditioned to believe, and the pattern of the sun's movement appears to fit the ball earth model better than it does on a flat earth. But that in itself does not prove a ball earth, IMO.
You mention above, EWPJ, that the formula of 8 inches per mile squared isn't a correct calculation, and I agree, since I believe in a flat earth, but can you perhaps explain or say more about this, and why you believe that this is the case, even though you don't understand the math? We don't have a good working model of a flat plane earth, but I don't think that we need one, and I can understand that some here disagree with that stand.
-
Very good post. I agree with most of what you wrote here. I have no problem embracing the FE system if it can be shown to work, but every model that’s been posted has insurmountable errors and I can’t see, even remotely, how it could work. The GE model works almost flawlessly.
The Geocentric system works and may be more “clunkier” than the heliocentric system, but it does work and in a way is more elegant. I have no problem whatsoever going against any conventional line of thought, but what replaces it must be somewhat logical and work.
More “clunky” not “clunkier”. :facepalm:
-
I just finished watching two debates on FE vs GE. The first was “Professor Dave” vs “Flat Earth Dave” and the Second was “Professor Dave” vs Austin Witsit.
Both debates contained some bad language, so I’m not going to post the links, but they’re easy to find on YouTube. Professor Dave is possibly the most obnoxious and arrogant person I’ve ever seen debate. I found myself almost rooting for the FEer in both debates. Unfortunately for the two FEers, especially “Flat Earth Dave”, they were totally destroyed.
The best FE argument, as I’ve said in the past, are the photos of distant objects supposedly showing mountains that, if believable, shouldn’t be visible on a global Earth. If they are in fact real photos, it’s possible that refraction or some other phenomena might be responsible for it, but this is the only thing about the FE theory that gives me pause. Anyway, neither “FED” nor “AW” could refute the overwhelming evidence supporting the GE model. “PD” blew them away when he asked them to explain why stars rotated counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. “AW” was asked this question multiple times and was reticent or tried to obfuscate his way out of the question. Unless and until FEers find a reasonable answer for this, aside from the many other holes in the theory, this alone makes the theory a nonstarter.
One other thing that was interesting about the second debate, was that “PD” prefaced his remarks by saying that “AW” was going to try to confuse the issue by conflating the geocentric theory with FE, which he absolutely tried to do. “PD” even admitting that the geocentric system does actually work! As I’ve said in the past, I believe this explosion of pushing the FE theory for the past 10 years is working to cover up the resurgence of the geocentric theory.
-
….
I just finished watching two debates on FE vs GE. The first was “Professor Dave” vs “Flat Earth Dave” and the Second was “Professor Dave” vs Austin Witsit.
Both debates contained some bad language, so I’m not going to post the links, but they’re easy to find on YouTube. Professor Dave is possibly the most obnoxious and arrogant person I’ve ever seen debate. I found myself almost rooting for the FEer in both debates. Unfortunately for the two FEers, especially “Flat Earth Dave”, they were totally destroyed.
The best FE argument, as I’ve said in the past, are the photos of distant objects supposedly showing mountains that, if believable, shouldn’t be visible on a global Earth. If they are in fact real photos, it’s possible that refraction or some other phenomena might be responsible for it, but this is the only thing about the FE theory that gives me pause. Anyway, neither “FED” nor “AW” could refute the overwhelming evidence supporting the GE model. “PD” blew them away when he asked them to explain why stars rotated counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. “AW” was asked this question multiple times and was reticent or tried to obfuscate his way out of the question. Unless and until FEers find a reasonable answer for this, aside from the many other holes in the theory, this alone makes the theory a nonstarter.
One other thing that was interesting about the second debate, was that “PD” prefaced his remarks by saying that “AW” was going to try to confuse the issue by conflating the geocentric theory with FE, which he absolutely tried to do. “PD” even admitting that the geocentric system does actually work! As I’ve said in the past, I believe this explosion of pushing the FE theory for the past 10 years is working to cover up the resurgence of the geocentric theory.
Funny thing. I just realized that I’ve watched much more FE stuff than I have of FE debunkers. This is probably why I never really thought about the movement of the stars as a proof of GE.
-
I just finished watching two debates on FE vs GE. The first was “Professor Dave” vs “Flat Earth Dave” and the Second was “Professor Dave” vs Austin Witsit.
Both debates contained some bad language, so I’m not going to post the links, but they’re easy to find on YouTube. Professor Dave is possibly the most obnoxious and arrogant person I’ve ever seen debate. I found myself almost rooting for the FEer in both debates. Unfortunately for the two FEers, especially “Flat Earth Dave”, they were totally destroyed.
The best FE argument, as I’ve said in the past, are the photos of distant objects supposedly showing mountains that, if believable, shouldn’t be visible on a global Earth. If they are in fact real photos, it’s possible that refraction or some other phenomena might be responsible for it, but this is the only thing about the FE theory that gives me pause. Anyway, neither “FED” nor “AW” could refute the overwhelming evidence supporting the GE model. “PD” blew them away when he asked them to explain why stars rotated counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. “AW” was asked this question multiple times and was reticent or tried to obfuscate his way out of the question. Unless and until FEers find a reasonable answer for this, aside from the many other holes in the theory, this alone makes the theory a nonstarter.
One other thing that was interesting about the second debate, was that “PD” prefaced his remarks by saying that “AW” was going to try to confuse the issue by conflating the geocentric theory with FE, which he absolutely tried to do. “PD” even admitting that the geocentric system does actually work! As I’ve said in the past, I believe this explosion of pushing the FE theory for the past 10 years is working to cover up the resurgence of the geocentric theory.
You mention the overwhelming evidence supporting the GE (ball) model. I agree that there is good evidence supporting the GE (ball) model, but the evidence is purely physical, and not scriptural. For instance, where are the four corners of the earth in a ball model? How does the firmament work on a ball model? Where is Heaven on a ball model?
Science is supposed to be subjugated to Scripture and Tradition, but it seems to be the other way around with the GE ball model. It's science that rules, and everything must conform to a strictly physical interpretation. Or at least that's what seems to be the case. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
You mention the overwhelming evidence supporting the GE (ball) model. I agree that there is good evidence supporting the GE (ball) model, but the evidence is purely physical, and not scriptural. For instance, where are the four corners of the earth in a ball model? How does the firmament work on a ball model? Where is Heaven on a ball model?
Science is supposed to be subjugated to Scripture and Tradition, but it seems to be the other way around with the GE ball model. It's science that rules, and everything must conform to a strictly physical interpretation. Or at least that's what seems to be the case. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, I agree, it’s physical evidence.
For centuries all Catholic scientists and theologians believed in a GE and didn’t see any contradiction with that and the things that you mentioned. I really don’t think you can find any Catholic scientist or theologian who believed in a FE for 1000 years or more. If you do, I can’t imagine it would be more than one of two.
-
For centuries all Catholic scientists and theologians believed in a GE and didn’t see any contradiction with that and the things that you mentioned. I really don’t think you can find any Catholic scientist or theologian who believed in a FE for 1000 years or more. If you do, I can’t imagine it would be more than one of two.
If it's the case that all Catholic scientists and theologians believed in a GE model, then why didn't GE become a doctrine of the Catholic Church?
-
If it's the case that all Catholic scientists and theologians believed in a GE model, then why didn't GE become a doctrine of the Catholic Church?
The Church doesn’t need to define everything and a GE doesn’t contradict any dogma. Even still, not everything is defined post haste. Just look at the dogma of the Assumption.
Most Catholics believed in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary since the Church’s foundation, but the Church didn’t define it until 1954.
-
The Church doesn’t need to define everything and a GE doesn’t contradict any dogma. Even still, not everything is defined post haste. Just look at the dogma of the Assumption.
Most Catholics believed in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary since the Church’s foundation, but the Church didn’t define it until 1954.
I agree - the Church doesn't have to define everything. And until the Church does define the shape of the earth, we are free to debate the subject. Somehow I doubt that there will be any forthcoming definition in our lifetimes. After all, the Church is occupied by Modernists. And they probably hold to a NASA interpretation of the shape of the earth.
-
I agree - the Church doesn't have to define everything. And until the Church does define the shape of the earth, we are free to debate the subject. Somehow I doubt that there will be any forthcoming definition in our lifetimes. After all, the Church is occupied by Modernists. And they probably hold to a NASA interpretation of the shape of the earth.
Absolutely, you are free to debate it and I really have no problem with it. Frankly, I have no problem with accepting the idea of a FE, but there are so many seemingly insurmountable problems that have to be addressed and overcome. This is why I keep insisting that you need a model. The model needs to demonstrate how the sun rises and sets among many other things.
BTW: It’s nice, for a change, not to be confrontational in a discussion with you. 😀
-
Absolutely, you are free to debate it and I really have no problem with it. Frankly, I have no problem with accepting the idea of a FE, but there are so many seemingly insurmountable problems that have to be addressed and overcome. This is why I keep insisting that you need a model. The model needs to demonstrate how the sun rises and sets among many other things.
BTW: It’s nice, for a change, not to be confrontational in a discussion with you. 😀
I can understand wanting to have a working model for FE. But I'm pretty sure that's not going to be available. There just aren't any, really. The only model that makes sense is the old Hebrew model, which I'm sure that you are familiar with by now. We want details, details, details. But God did not provide all of those for us. He gave a simple explanation in Scripture, mainly in Genesis, but that's not really enough for our ever-restless minds.
I feel like our modern society is all about having proofs. Physical proofs, as in cold hard facts. But there's just so much about Creation that we don't understand, so how can we really have absolute proof? Or maybe you don't really need absolute proof; rather a reasonable proof may do, right?
-
Well said! For some reason, the subject of the shape of the earth, and defending one's position on it, can cause a lot of contention. I used to sometimes get upset about it too. Those who believe that they must denigrate FE because it makes trads look stupid is not a good way to go about defending the ball earth, but it's also not a teaching of the Church that the earth is flat. So we are free to debate the subject, even though one or two here may not agree with that.
I can understand why some here believe in a ball earth. It's what we were all conditioned to believe, and the pattern of the sun's movement appears to fit the ball earth model better than it does on a flat earth. But that in itself does not prove a ball earth, IMO.
You mention above, EWPJ, that the formula of 8 inches per mile squared isn't a correct calculation, and I agree, since I believe in a flat earth, but can you perhaps explain or say more about this, and why you believe that this is the case, even though you don't understand the math? We don't have a good working model of a flat plane earth, but I don't think that we need one, and I can understand that some here disagree with that stand.
Oh yeah. Here's a link by a geometric physicist or some such title that talks about it and the comment section has people challenging it and his rebuttals, etc. Could the guy ultimately be wrong? Possibly but I don't think he is but then again I'm not a math whiz and I'd welcome a solid rebuttal of his and better explanation of the maths and such about how FE'ers come up with 8 in. per mile squared.
https://chizzlewit.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/working-with-the-curvaure-of-a-spherical-earth/
I just finished watching two debates on FE vs GE. The first was “Professor Dave” vs “Flat Earth Dave” and the Second was “Professor Dave” vs Austin Witsit.
Both debates contained some bad language, so I’m not going to post the links, but they’re easy to find on YouTube. Professor Dave is possibly the most obnoxious and arrogant person I’ve ever seen debate. I found myself almost rooting for the FEer in both debates. Unfortunately for the two FEers, especially “Flat Earth Dave”, they were totally destroyed.
The best FE argument, as I’ve said in the past, are the photos of distant objects supposedly showing mountains that, if believable, shouldn’t be visible on a global Earth. If they are in fact real photos, it’s possible that refraction or some other phenomena might be responsible for it, but this is the only thing about the FE theory that gives me pause. Anyway, neither “FED” nor “AW” could refute the overwhelming evidence supporting the GE model. “PD” blew them away when he asked them to explain why stars rotated counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. “AW” was asked this question multiple times and was reticent or tried to obfuscate his way out of the question. Unless and until FEers find a reasonable answer for this, aside from the many other holes in the theory, this alone makes the theory a nonstarter.
One other thing that was interesting about the second debate, was that “PD” prefaced his remarks by saying that “AW” was going to try to confuse the issue by conflating the geocentric theory with FE, which he absolutely tried to do. “PD” even admitting that the geocentric system does actually work! As I’ve said in the past, I believe this explosion of pushing the FE theory for the past 10 years is working to cover up the resurgence of the geocentric theory.
Funny thing. I just realized that I’ve watched much more FE stuff than I have of FE debunkers. This is probably why I never really thought about the movement of the stars as a proof of GE.
I watched some of the Farina vs DITRH debate but DITRH's "lithp" and effeminate voice got on my nerves so much I had to check out although some FE'ers admitted and said that DITRH did terrible and did not represent FE very well. I did watch the Farina vs Whitsit debate and thought Whitsit did a solid job and won the debate, not by a landslide by any means, but if one is being objective he made the most arguments that Farina couldn't refute and Farina just kept obfuscating and not answering a lot of Whitsit's questions by using childhood tantrum antics.
That being said, I agree Farina is annoying but he made a couple good arguments but to be fair Whitsit tried to answer some of those but was basically cut off by the mod and Farina quite a bit where it wasn't completely fair. The whole debate needed a rigid timed format where no one could interrupt the other and a better format. The mod was terrible and biased. Whitsit does answer a lot of objections in his debate review video if you care to look at that.