That’s similar to how I picture it, Grey. Thank 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!  

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)



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. (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.  (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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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?