Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Cryptinox on November 27, 2021, 07:39:28 PM
-
I am not a strong round Earther myself but I am curious as to what flat Earthers have to say about the Miraculous Medal and Infant of Prague.
(https://i.imgur.com/43uPSO9.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/anHf5j7.jpg)
-
Typically, the Salvator Mundi image of Christ is shown with an orb as a representation of His dominion over creation. But, this doesn't prove anything about the shape of the earth, and it isn't intended to. Later works, such as the Immaculate Conception image you have there, depict the earth itself as a sphere. Which is merely an artist's interpretation of the world being at Mary's feet or the earth as God's footstool.
It doesn't prove anything, really, as these images are not dogmatic pronouncements themselves on the shape of the earth. The Church has made no such pronouncements, only that geocentrism is true.
-
Typically, the Salvator Mundi image of Christ is shown with an orb as a representation of His dominion over creation. But, this doesn't prove anything about the shape of the earth, and it isn't intended to. Later works, such as the Immaculate Conception image you have there, depict the earth itself as a sphere. Which is merely an artist's interpretation of the world being at Mary's feet or the earth as God's footstool.
It doesn't prove anything, really, as these images are not dogmatic pronouncements themselves on the shape of the earth. The Church has made no such pronouncements, only that geocentrism is true.
And that's a reason to use the crap ideas of one Eric Dubay to say that the Reichsinsignien of the 1000 year Holy Roman Empire, starting on 25th Dec 800 with the coronation of Kaiser Karl, and ending with the capitulation of the last Kaiser on 25th Dec 1800 when the troops of Napoleon were close to Vienna, were a false representation of reality?
-
Typically, the Salvator Mundi image of Christ is shown with an orb as a representation of His dominion over creation. But, this doesn't prove anything about the shape of the earth, and it isn't intended to. Later works, such as the Immaculate Conception image you have there, depict the earth itself as a sphere. Which is merely an artist's interpretation of the world being at Mary's feet or the earth as God's footstool.
It doesn't prove anything, really, as these images are not dogmatic pronouncements themselves on the shape of the earth. The Church has made no such pronouncements, only that geocentrism is true.
The Miraculous Medal image was based off what St. Catherine Laboure saw. I know it is private revelation but I am pretty sure nearly everyone on this forum accepts her visions as legitimate.
-
In fact the earth is shaped like a globe, but we live on a flat surface within it. There’s a firmament dome over the top and the bottom part is what’s beneath with the earth, where hell is. All the ancient conceptions of the earth look like that.
(https://pursuingveritasdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/ancient-hebrew-view-of-universe.png?w=750)
-
That's yet another reason in favor of flat earth. Every ancient culture had a very similar concept of the universe ... just like the "Hebrew" one. I have never believed this nonsense about how ancient cultures were stupid people, and how we now know better. There was a significant amount of what's called "primitive revelation", knowledge passed on from Adam and Eve, who knew everything about the nature of the world.
-
We do not live on a globe, but rather IN a globe.
-
Many of the flat-earth proponents on CI wait for a "Great Monarch", while ridiculing the insignia of a thousand years of real great Catholic Monarchs, during the Holy Roman Empire.
Why would the Lord want to hear you?
-
We do not live on a globe, but rather IN a globe.
Right. Globe earth + flat land. No contradiction.
-
In fact the earth is shaped like a globe, but we live on a flat surface within it. There’s a firmament dome over the top and the bottom part is what’s beneath with the earth, where hell is. All the ancient conceptions of the earth look like that.
(https://pursuingveritasdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/ancient-hebrew-view-of-universe.png?w=750)
I really love this graphic. It's exactly what I picture in Scripture combined with the claims of Flat Earth.
This actually gives great insights into why Antarctica is the ice wall encapsulating the earth-plane (like a bowl). As the sun's light is only limited to its circuit above the earthly plane, it's heat is unable to reach the furthest edges of the water globe which the flat plane is encapsulated in. Therefore, these waters would, logically, freeze over with the lack of heat.
-
Right. Globe earth + flat land. No contradiction.
Take a look at this image and you'll see that the definitions of the structure of our world are within the orb Our Lord holds. The upper bar representing the solid Firmament, and the equilateral bar that of the solid earth.
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/sJRWmT8/Andrea-Previtali-Salvator-Mundi-1519-oil-on-poplar-61-6-x-53-cm-National-Gallery.jpg)
-
Right. Globe earth + flat land. No contradiction.
Earth designates the land within God's creation. Reread Genesis; it is all spelled out for us. Earth is distinct from the waters, both those above and below the firmament. The model Lad shared only has the term "earth" next to the land upon the flat plane which is under the dome of the firmament.
-
And that's a reason to use the crap ideas of one Eric Dubay...
Did you go to high school with him and he was the stud QB and you were the dork with acne? Did he kill your cat, steal your wife or girlfriend? You would do better to leave him out of these discussions and focus on cold, hard facts.
-
I did watch a bit of Eric Dubay doc that made an interesting point. If the Earth is a globe spinning at a thousand miles an hour, why wouldn't a westward-bound aircraft, whose destination is more or less exactly parallel, just rise up in the air and stay stationary until the destination arrived to them? Aircraft would be designed to take someone straight up in the air, and just wait for the Earth to rotate to bring Denver to them. It takes 3 Hours to fly to Denver (lat. 39.73) from Indianapolis (lat 39.76), which is just over 1,000 miles away. Going straight up and waiting for the Earth to rotate would just take 1 hour. Now, flying from Denver to Indianapolis takes a half hour less, but if the world is spinning counter-clockwise, then Indianapolis would be moving away from the plane, so the flight time should be longer, as the jet stream averages as 250mph and maxes out at 750mph, which couldn't make up for the 1,000mph rotation speed.
-
I did watch a bit of Eric Dubay doc that made an interesting point. If the Earth is a globe spinning at a thousand miles an hour, why wouldn't a westward-bound aircraft, whose destination is more or less exactly parallel, just rise up in the air and stay stationary until the destination arrived to them? Aircraft would be designed to take someone straight up in the air, and just wait for the Earth to rotate to bring Denver to them. It takes 3 Hours to fly to Denver (lat. 39.73) from Indianapolis (lat 39.76), which is just over 1,000 miles away. Going straight up and waiting for the Earth to rotate would just take 1 hour.
Ah, but this is explained by the magic of "gravity". This amazing force drags the plane and the entire atmosphere around the globe as if it were attached by an iron rod even when it's 30,000 feet up. But, then, of course, the small flap of a butterfly's wings can allow it to move westward with no more difficulty than it moves eastward. If gravity were that powerful a force that it dragged things around at 1,000 MPH, then in order for this butterfly to move westward, that should prove to be more difficult than what a salmon has to do swimming upstream. But there's no difference in exertion whether it's floating east or floating west. In fact, it has no sense of direction based on any difference in the required exertion. Then there are flights from North going SouthWest. Not only does the plane have to fly south, it has to counteract this iron-grip pull of the earth toward East. Or if a plane were to fly from the North Pole to the equator due south, at the North Pole, the earth is only rotating in at an extremely slow pace. But then as it flew south, the speed of the movement of the surface underneath would increase, and the angular momentum of the plane and the exertion required to counteract the force would have to constantly increase. Does a pilot have to increase the engine throttle as he moves south and the pull of gravity causes it to move eastward at an ever-faster pace?
It's utterly absurd.
Now, technically, this speaks more to a stationary earth than a flat earth per se.
Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure also proved that the planet is not rotating but rather that the stars revolve around it.
-
Another major probem is that the jetstreams all move from West to East, in the SAME direction as the earth allegedly rotates.
"Scientists" explain this by saying it's because the winds of the jetstream are actually moving FASTER than the earth rotates. OK, so at the equator, these West to East winds are actually moving faster than 1,000 MPH ... and the highest-ever speed recorded of a tornado is 302MPH. So these jetstreams must actually be moving at more than 3 times the speed that a tornado rotates.
If the earth were actually rotating West to East, then the jetstreams should clearly move from East to West.
-
Ah, but this is explained by the magic of "gravity". This amazing force drags the plane and the entire atmosphere around the globe as if it were attached by an iron rod even when it's 30,000 feet up. But, then, of course, the small flap of a butterfly's wings can allow it to move westward with no more difficulty thant it moves eastward. If gravity were that powerful a force that it dragged things around at 1,000 MPH, then in order for this butterfly to move westward, that should prove to be more difficult than what a salmon has to do swimming upstream. But there's no difference in exertion whether it's floating east or floating west. In fact, it has no sense of direction based on any difference in the required exertion. Then there are flights from North going SouthWest. Not only does the plane have to fly south, it has to counteract this iron-grip pull of the earth toward East. Or if a plane were to fly from the North Pole to the equator due south, at the North Pole, the earth is only rotating in at an extremely slow pace. But then as it flew south, the speed of the movement of the surface underneath would increase, and the angular momentum of the plane and the exertion required to counteract the force would have to constantly increase. Does a pilot have to increase the engine throttle as he moves south and the pull of gravity causes it to move eastward at an ever-faster pace?
It's utterly absurd.
Now, technically, this speaks more to a stationary earth than a flat earth per se.
Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure also proved that the planet is not rotating but rather that the starts revolve around it.
I'm not FE or Stationary Earth, but am finding some of the arguments worth investigating. I never gave them any credibility before, but some of it is making sense, and I'm willing to give it a fair consideration.
-
I'm not FE or Stationary Earth, but am finding some of the arguments worth investigating. I never gave them any credibility before, but some of it is making sense, and I'm willing to give it a fair consideration.
That's where I started out as well. I was initially extremely skeptical, but the more I looked at the arguments from both sides, the more convinced I became of the FE position.
-
Many of the flat-earth proponents on CI wait for a "Great Monarch", while ridiculing the insignia of a thousand years of real great Catholic Monarchs, during the Holy Roman Empire.
Why would the Lord want to hear you?
What in the heck are you blathering on about?
What do the Great Monarch, a thousand years of Catholic Monarchs, or the Holy Roman Empire, have to do with Flat Earth?
Enlighten us, because no one but you has a clue what you're talking about.
-
Ah, but this is explained by the magic of "gravity". This amazing force drags the plane and the entire atmosphere around the globe as if it were attached by an iron rod even when it's 30,000 feet up. But, then, of course, the small flap of a butterfly's wings can allow it to move westward with no more difficulty than it moves eastward. If gravity were that powerful a force that it dragged things around at 1,000 MPH, then in order for this butterfly to move westward, that should prove to be more difficult than what a salmon has to do swimming upstream. But there's no difference in exertion whether it's floating east or floating west. In fact, it has no sense of direction based on any difference in the required exertion. Then there are flights from North going SouthWest. Not only does the plane have to fly south, it has to counteract this iron-grip pull of the earth toward East. Or if a plane were to fly from the North Pole to the equator due south, at the North Pole, the earth is only rotating in at an extremely slow pace. But then as it flew south, the speed of the movement of the surface underneath would increase, and the angular momentum of the plane and the exertion required to counteract the force would have to constantly increase. Does a pilot have to increase the engine throttle as he moves south and the pull of gravity causes it to move eastward at an ever-faster pace?
It's utterly absurd.
Now, technically, this speaks more to a stationary earth than a flat earth per se.
Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure also proved that the planet is not rotating but rather that the stars revolve around it.
This is one of the things that pushed me towards Flat Earth. The whole globe earth-spinning 1000 MPH-gravity model just doesn't work in reality.
Your example of the butterfly is a slam-dunk, in my opinion. The bit about air molecules at 100 feet, 1000 feet, and 10,000 feet and 100,000 feet all being connected to the earth below as with an iron rod -- that's exactly what they teach, and it's insane in my opinion. It is heavy brainwashing (like "wear a mask to stay safe") but it has no bearing on reality, once you look into it. It has ZERO science and all religion.
Well, I don't need their religion. I have the Catholic Faith, thankyouverymuch.
-
What in the heck are you blathering on about?
What do the Great Monarch, a thousand years of Catholic Monarchs, or the Holy Roman Empire, have to do with Flat Earth?
Enlighten us, because no one but you has a clue what you're talking about.
I think he's talking about the symbol of kingship, the globe with the cross on top, but it's perfectly compatible with the FE model of the earth with firmament on top. DL posted a picture that looks more like the firmament model than the solid globe model. In any case, that symbol is compatible with both models. Besides that, the symbol doesn't necessarily mean what he's implying. Not every Catholic Monarch had kingship over the entire world. So I think there's some question regarding what that symbol even means.
So, yes, absolutely this is no "proof" of anything. This was actually Nishant's "go-to" proof of globe earth ... and it's already been debunked several times now. Nishant tended to do most of his theology from private revelation and Catholic art.
Even IF there were a symbol of a globe in Catholic art, that's not exactly tantamount to Catholic teaching anyway. As we saw on a different thread, some early Christian art depicted Our Lord without a beard.
-
In fact the earth is shaped like a globe, but we live on a flat surface within it. There’s a firmament dome over the top and the bottom part is what’s beneath with the earth, where hell is. All the ancient conceptions of the earth look like that.
I'm sure you've heard this question before so please indulge me. How has the 'spherical earth' deception been pulled off? All astronauts are liars? What about satellites? If they are not orbiting a sphere, where are they? Who is enforcing the secrecy surrounding the deception? Lastly, why have we been sold this lie?
-
This is one of the things that pushed me towards Flat Earth. The whole globe earth-spinning 1000 MPH-gravity model just doesn't work in reality.
Your example of the butterfly is a slam-dunk, in my opinion. The bit about air molecules at 100 feet, 1000 feet, and 10,000 feet and 100,000 feet all being connected to the earth below as with an iron rod -- that's exactly what they teach, and it's insane in my opinion. It is heavy brainwashing (like "wear a mask to stay safe") but it has no bearing on reality, once you look into it. It has ZERO science and all religion.
Well, I don't need their religion. I have the Catholic Faith, thankyouverymuch.
Right, this technically speaks toward whether the earth is in motion or not, more than Flat Earth per se, but it's part and parcel of the "Modern Science" view of the cosmos.
Between simple common sense, such as the butterfly example, and then scientific experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy, it's pretty clear that the earth is not moving. Oh, and to add to this, the centrifugal force of a moving earth should be greater at the equator than at the "poles", and so things should weigh slightly less at the equator than at the poles. But experiments have actually shown no difference. Airplanes actually travel slightly quicker moving West to East, than from East to West. But that should be the opposite, as planes SHOULD be forced to overcome that massive gravity that drags everything around it as if it were attached to the earth by an iron rod. As planes move from East to West, it should be like salmon swimming upstream, and planes should use a ton more fuel going in that direction than from West to East.
Another interesting tidbit is the RedBull jump. So the guy took 2.5 hours to get up to his 120,000 foot altitude. In 2.5 hours, the earth, given his latitude, should have rotated 2,000 miles. And were he not attached by "gravity" to the globe, he should have ended up 2,000 miles West, in the Pacific Ocean. But he landed 40 miles to the East. So theoretically this powerful force of gravity dragged him 2,000 miles along with it. That kind of a force should require significant effort to overcome when travelling West, but no such additional force, engine power, fuel, etc. is required when moving West.
That's just simple physics. If there's a force dragging things along at 1,000 MPH to the East, then there needs to be an Equal and Opposite force required to overcome that. No such force is known to be required. That would be IN ADDITION to the force required to propel the plane 500MPH or so toward the West as it travels in that direction. So to travel East, the plane would be required to create enough thrust to ADD 500MPH to the rotation. But going West, it would have to add enough thrust to achieve that 500MPH delta and then also overcome gravity that allegedly drags it 1000MPH in the other direction.
In effect, the plane would have to muster thrust that would be the equivalent of travelling 1500MPH to the West, and planes don't have that kind of power, nor is there any indication that they need to apply more thrust or use more fuel when travelling West.
Oh, and if you're going West, you'd be fighting against winds that are travelling in excess of 1,000 MPH toward the East. So you'd be flying into 1,000 MPH winds, over 3 times faster than the highest windspeeds ever recorded in a tornado.
None of this adds up. There's no way the earth is rotating.
-
Another interesting tidbit is the RedBull jump. So the guy took 2.5 hours to get up to his 120,000 foot altitude. In 2.5 hours, the earth, given his latitude, should have rotated 2,000 miles. And were he not attached by "gravity" to the globe, he should have ended up 2,000 miles West, in the Pacific Ocean. But he landed 40 miles to the East. So theoretically this powerful force of gravity dragged him 2,000 miles along with it. That kind of a force should require significant effort to overcome when travelling West, but no such additional force, engine power, fuel, etc. is required when moving West.
Yes, it's like they want to have their Gravity and eat it too. They have to pick.
The reality of Air travel really throws a monkey wrench in their Globe system.
Gravity can't be an inexhorable, super powerful force sometimes, and gentle/forgiving at other times, depending on its "mood". That's not how natural forces work! Natural forces have no "moods".
-
Yes, it's like they want to have their Gravity and eat it too. They have to pick.
The reality of Air travel really throws a monkey wrench in their Globe system.
Gravity can't be an inexhorable, super powerful force sometimes, and gentle/forgiving at other times, depending on its "mood". That's not how natural forces work! Natural forces have no "moods".
Yes, and there's also the well-known pesky problem of having to correct downward flying around the globe. If a plane is travelling 500 miles per hour, so about 8 miles per minute, it would have to correct down over 2,000 feet per minute. Someone looked at the fastest plane in existence and discovered that it would have to correct down by 16,000 feet per minute to avoid increasing altitude over a globe. There's a great interview with a retired F-16 pilot who's firm about flat earth. In addition to this, he states that their tactics and targetting systems could not work on a globe.
-
Yes, and there's also the well-known pesky problem of having to correct downward flying around the globe.
There's also that pesky problem that if the earth were flat, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now. :-)
Seriously, Laddy, what you said has been debunked many times, including on this site, and you're aware of that.
-
There's also that pesky problem that if the earth were flat, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now. :-)
Seriously, Laddy, what you said has been debunked many times, including on this site, and you're aware of that.
Why do you say this stuff? It's not only inconsiderate, but inaccurate.
-
Inaccurate how?
-
naccurate how?
What was proven debunked?
-
What was proven debunked?
Yes, and there's also the well-known pesky problem of having to correct downward flying around the globe.
This has been explained before.
Below is how these discussions look to me. Would you like to break the cycle?
FE: A proves FE.
GE: No it doesn't. Here's why.
FE: What about B.
GE: Here's the explanation
FE: What about C.
GE: Here's an explanation.
FE: What about A.
GE: Here's the explanation, again
FE: What about B.
GE: See earlier explanation.
FE: But there's C.
GE: Previously explained.
...
-
This has been explained before.
Guess I missed it. A good debunk you should be happy to repost.
-
Guess I missed it. A good debunk you should be happy to repost.
You could have missed it. We've probably had a hundred pages on FE recently.
But remember, I wash't addressing you. I was addressing someone who referred to one of these previous explanations in one of his own posts.
-
The essential problem is that all of us have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the satanic, freemason, nasa, "education" and "media" systems that it's only by prayer and the grace of God that we are able to approach the topic with a truly open mind.
Those who do so will be shocked to learn that not only does no proof exist for heliocentricism, but there is also no proof of globe theory, and no proof of a spinning globe, a spinning solar system, a spinning galaxy yada yada.
The PTB have made it extremely difficult to research this (and numerous other) topics. Algorithms in search engines push the narrative of the satanic system. Years ago it was easy to research FE, now you have to plow through pages and pages of "debunking" links.
Research is hindered, leaving many people in the fallback position of depending on what they "learned" in school and from movies, books, newspapers, their parents and Mr. Science Guy.
Why is this issue significant? The enemy's goal is to displace God and to minimize God and His creation. And to minimize God's plan for salvation. And to set us up to buy the lies of evolution, multiple universes, life on other planets and the coming fake, staged "alien" (demonic) invasion.
-
Why is this issue significant? The enemy's goal is to displace God and to minimize God and His creation. And to minimize God's plan for salvation. And to set us up to buy the lies of evolution, multiple universes, life on other planets and the coming fake, staged "alien" (demonic) invasion.
OK, but this argument is about "flat earth". None of what you say is an argument that the earth is in fact flat.
I'm not saying this is you, but many of those promoting FE here don't seem to understand what mainstream science says, even to the point of constructing strawman arguments.
It's difficult to filter truth from error if someone doesn't understand what's being said. So I appreciate there can be a desire to toss it all.
It is my opinion, after participating in these disucssions for a few weeks, that in rejecting other errors, some here go too far.