Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Cera on July 14, 2023, 06:08:31 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkBlFTcBpFQ&list=PLUrnnkvyMBf-2pdV3J5wNUDh7NFvLfJ2h&index=5
-
What propels the sun through the air in the flat earth theory? And what makes it move in a circle? If you throw a rock through the air, it doesn't move in a circle. If you trace a line on the earth over the path it would take, the line would be perfectly straight. I am not aware of any object that moves in the air over the earth's surface in such a way that, if you were to trace its path on the ground, the path would be circular. The closest thing would be a boomerang, I guess, but even those things go in somewhat of a curve but definitely not a circle.
And if there is no known case of any other object moving in such a manner, how do we know such movement is even physically possible?
-
What propels the sun through the air in the flat earth theory? And what makes it move in a circle? If you throw a rock through the air, it doesn't move in a circle. If you trace a line on the earth over the path it would take, the line would be perfectly straight. I am not aware of any object that moves in the air over the earth's surface in such a way that, if you were to trace its path on the ground, the path would be circular. The closest thing would be a boomerang, I guess, but even those things go in somewhat of a curve but definitely not a circle.
And if there is no known case of any other object moving in such a manner, how do we know such movement is even physically possible?
Most FE'ers posit an electromagnetic mechanism of some sort.
-
What propels the sun through the air in the flat earth theory? And what makes it move in a circle? If you throw a rock through the air, it doesn't move in a circle. If you trace a line on the earth over the path it would take, the line would be perfectly straight. I am not aware of any object that moves in the air over the earth's surface in such a way that, if you were to trace its path on the ground, the path would be circular. The closest thing would be a boomerang, I guess, but even those things go in somewhat of a curve but definitely not a circle.
And if there is no known case of any other object moving in such a manner, how do we know such movement is even physically possible?
Hey Yeti,
I'm not sure of the answer. It appears that God put the lights IN the firmament and not in "outer space":
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
and that the firmament is like crystal:
"And over the heads of the living creatures was the likeness of the firmament, as the appearance of crystal terrible to behold, and stretched out over their heads above." [Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 1:22]
Like a crystal dome.
I've never heard of an explanation for these questions with regards to a ball earth either.
What propels the sun through the air on a ball earth?
Do you believe the earth is spinning or the sun revolves around the ball? In either case, what propels it?
Is there an explanation for what makes it go in a circle rather than another direction?
Here is a quick vid showing how everything is in motion with the heliocentric model according to modern science.
What is propelling everything at those unimaginable speeds shooting through "outer space" with no firmament? How is it possible that the constellations remain the same year after year and polaris is always in a fixed spot above the North Pole?
3min ball earther vid
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IbTlQSTZUlXr/
And this quick one shows the polaris phenomena:
18sec flat earther vid
https://www.bitchute.com/video/K2N5lchEvfP4/
The crystal dome and stationary polaris fit more with this model:
(https://i.imgur.com/5xmhZeh.png)
This shows how the firmament is a clock like a Wheel in the Sky with the constellations rotating as
"signs, and for seasons, and for days and years" as it says in Genesis.
about 7min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/dSxhHTX484Jj/
It features a song by the rock band Journey called "Wheel in the Sky". Some say it's Ezekiel's Wheel from Sacred Scripture but I haven't really looked into that.
I believe Freemasons know this info and rock bands are all part of the Freemason club so they divulge bits of truth in their songs.
There is also that Beatles song which says:
But the fool on the hill sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round (oh oh oh)
'Round and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round
I was tipped off to the Freemason "secret knowledge of the adepts" when I was a flight attendant years ago asking some pilots questions such as
"Why are we flying over the arctic? This is wayyyy out of the way."
And
"Why is our flying time relatively the same when travelling cross country in either direction if the earth is spinning below us 1000 mph?"
and
"Why don't we make adjustments to the plane nose down if the earth is dropping in elevation below us as we travel over the curve? If we don't make adjustments and we continue to fly level we will go straight out into space."
Etc.
The answers they gave were evasive and made no sense really.
The first officer seemed to have a conscience and didn't like lying to me and knew the explanations were lame so he blurted out chuckling, "Well you'd have to be a Freemason to know that."
The Captain looked at him like, "What did you just say?!!!"
Then the Captain got all angry with me and demanded to know if I was a flat earther.
This was in the 90's and I'd never heard of a Flat Earther and so I said, "No. Just asking questions."
He got all red in the face and said, "Well you sure sound like a flat earther. ARE YOU SURE you aren't one?"
It was bizarre. Why did he snap and get all mad and start mocking me? What is a Flat earther I wondered? I had never heard of them. What is a Freemason anyway, I wondered. I had never even heard of them either. Why did that come into the conversation?? :confused: Why did he get mad at the FO for saying that???
Anyway, there was no internet to look these things up back then and it wasn't until years later that my questions were answered by researching Biblical cosmology and flat earth and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
They don't like it when secret knowledge is leaked to the "profane masses" which explains why the Captain got all mad and mocked me to shut down my questions, but it looks like they are starting to reveal things as part of the revelation of the hierarchy as we approach the "New Age".
(https://i.imgur.com/h70HmUL.jpg)
-
Just a question.
How do flat earthers explain Magellan, Drake and other ships that have circuмnavigated the world if it's not a globe?
I don't understand how people believe this FE stuff.
-
Just a question.
How do flat earthers explain Magellan, Drake and other ships that have circuмnavigated the world if it's not a globe?
I don't understand how people believe this FE stuff.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/B4gnqkq416CW/
Direct answers to your questions plus a history of the Catholic Church protecting the flat earth.
-
Just a question.
How do flat earthers explain Magellan, Drake and other ships that have circuмnavigated the world if it's not a globe?
I don't understand how people believe this FE stuff.
:facepalm: I would have taking this as an honest question ... until your last sentence. This is really one of the simplest things to address. Whether you're on a globe or on a flat circle, in both cases you're simply going in a circle when you go around the earth. Do you imagine the FE model is the Mercator Projection where it just suddenly stops on either side. Perhaps if you'd educate yourself a bit first you'd be in more of a position to summarily reject "this FE stuff".
-
Hey Yeti,
I'm not sure of the answer. It appears that God put the lights IN the firmament and not in "outer space":
That is how the Church Fathers all read it. There was debate about what the firmament was made of, and whether sun/moon/starts moved through the firmament (and it was some kind of plasma-like substance) or else the firmament was so solid that nothing could move in it and so the entire firmament rotated, account for the motion of the heavenly bodies.
-
I don't agree that the sun/moon remain parallel to the earth. I believe that they follow the shape of the firmament, being in it, which is shaped like a dome. This would explain everything about the model, why the sun moves "faster" when it's farther South and slower in the North. If the firmament makes a single revolution around the earth in 24 hours, and the firmament is shaped like a dome, then there would be a larger circuмference to traverse in the South, thus causing it to move faster ... not unlike how they say that the earth rotates faster closer to the equator. This would also explain how the lengths of days are roughly the same in opposite seasons, but with a more diffused and less abrupt sunrise and sunset in the south. So, even though it's moving faster in the South, the sun is also closer to the plane of the earth, and thus would disappear more quickly due to convergence with the horizon, atmospheric occlusion, etc.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkBlFTcBpFQ&list=PLUrnnkvyMBf-2pdV3J5wNUDh7NFvLfJ2h&index=5
Great video. If you look from 3:30 on, there's the video I had mentioned where the sun appears to be half set (half missing) and you can zoom back in on it and bring the entire sun back to you, proving that sunsets are due to perspective. I mentioned this video to some clown here who kept arguing from the "common sense" and "your own senses" regarding sunsets. There are also the sun "fadeout" videos, some of the best ones make by David Weiss, that show the sun disappearing and fading away while still over the horizon line. Finally, there are videos taken in dry desert conditions showing the sun shrink very significantly as it "sets", which could not happen if it were 93 million miles away.
-
[video link]
Direct answers to your questions plus a history of the Catholic Church protecting the flat earth.
Since this site is run by manifest heretics who describe themselves as promoters of reformed theology and followers of Calvin, it is certainly not a good source for the history of the Catholic Church. Or the truth about anything really. Here is a quote from their site (which I am not linking to because I do not want to give them traffic):RReformed Theology teaches the doctrines of grace. The doctrines of grace are often called the five points of Calvinism. The five points are total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, effectual calling, and perseverance of the saints.
-
Since this site is run by manifest heretics who describe themselves as promoters of reformed theology and followers of Calvin, it is certainly not a good source for the history of the Catholic Church. Or the truth about anything really. Here is a quote from their site (which I am not linking to because I do not want to give them traffic):RReformed Theology teaches the doctrines of grace. The doctrines of grace are often called the five points of Calvinism. The five points are total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, effectual calling, and perseverance of the saints.
Because you're consistent you also reject and don't investigate anything atheists and freemasons say about creation correct? You dismiss everything NASA and other devilish institutions say right?
-
Since this site is run by manifest heretics who describe themselves as promoters of reformed theology and followers of Calvin, it is certainly not a good source for the history of the Catholic Church. Or the truth about anything really. Here is a quote from their site (which I am not linking to because I do not want to give them traffic):RReformed Theology teaches the doctrines of grace. The doctrines of grace are often called the five points of Calvinism. The five points are total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, effectual calling, and perseverance of the saints.
Naturally, some sources of good information are at odds with the truth philosophically, but the content of the video is basically sound, and accurate, or I wouldn't post it.
Looking back, you've provided non-Catholic sources, that also happen to be inaccurate.
-
What propels the sun through the air in the flat earth theory? And what makes it move in a circle? If you throw a rock through the air, it doesn't move in a circle.
Uhm, the firmament is a globe that rotates in a circle around the earth, and the heavenly bodies are in the firmament. And yet you believe (from faith in the scientists) that some magical force causes the planets to circle around the sun.
None of the Globers actually believe in the firmament described by Sacred Scripture, all the Church Fathers, and even St. Thomas Aquinas (who is often cited by Globers in favor of ball earth).
Where's the firmament? Where are the waters (H2O) above said firmament? No, the firmament is not just "space", as Sungenis said. Sacred Scripture clearly describes its properties. It's solid enough to prevent waters from flooding the earth. Nor are these waters above the firmament metaphorical waters, since the account of the Flood explains that gates in the firmament were opened to allow these waters (that contributed to Flood waters) fall down onto the earth.
-
I am not aware of any object that moves in the air over the earth's surface in such a way that, if you were to trace its path on the ground, the path would be circular.
Start at the 1-minute mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA
There are more things in heaven and on earth than are dream of in your philosophy. You act as if "science" has it all figured out. They don't really know what the sun actually is. It could be an electromagnetic charged plasma entity rather than a solid ball of nuclear fusion. There's a top scientist out there, Dr. Robitaille, who convincingly demonstrates that the prevailing model of the sun (nothing but theory, but taught as fact) is total bunk. I find the "Electric Universe" model much more convincing. Nor do we really know what exactly is at the core of the earth, as no one has dug down more than 9 miles. It's nothing but theory that there's this rotating iron core in the center.
Unfortunately, there's too much brain "vapor lock" created by individuals who hold things like the modern theory about the sun or about gravity or other "scientific" theories as if they were fact. That's because they were taught in school that these things are fact.
-
May have already been asked and answered but any flat earthers here able to share what they saw while in an airplane? Were you able to see the entire surface of the earth? If not, why?
Also, why do projectiles travel in an arc if earth is flat? Wouldn't it travel in a angle?
-
May have already been asked and answered but any flat earthers here able to share what they saw while in an airplane? Were you able to see the entire surface of the earth? If not, why?
Also, why do projectiles travel in an arc if earth is flat? Wouldn't it travel in a angle?
There are a series of videos online that show you can see hundreds of miles from a plane using infrared cameras. There are a couple reasons you can't see that far with the naked eye, which includes thinks like refraction, moisture, human eye limitations, and other factors that the infrared can overcome.
Infra red camera
https://youtu.be/o2ZrKntK2Ec (https://youtu.be/o2ZrKntK2Ec)
Photogrammetry
https://youtu.be/NXqb9Qykq3k (https://youtu.be/NXqb9Qykq3k)
Refraction Gravity vector
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9CpxLn0kB4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9CpxLn0kB4)
Projectiles like those from a railgun never travel in an arc, they travel precision level or for hundreds of miles.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Icn4mFnEObAY/
-
May have already been asked and answered but any flat earthers here able to share what they saw while in an airplane? Were you able to see the entire surface of the earth? If not, why?
Also, why do projectiles travel in an arc if earth is flat? Wouldn't it travel in a angle?
Even Dr. Sungenis rejects the glober argument that you should be able to see forever. We have something called an atmosphere that has matter in it, gases, water, etc. ... not to mention that after a while the angular resolution at huge distances makes things impossible to see, as our optics are only so good.
-
https://www.bitchute.com/video/B4gnqkq416CW/
Direct answers to your questions plus a history of the Catholic Church protecting the flat earth.
thanks .check it out later.
-
Because you're consistent you also reject and don't investigate anything atheists and freemasons say about creation correct? You dismiss everything NASA and other devilish institutions say right?
When I look at non-Catholic sources, I take their biases into account and read with suspicion. This particular video contained clear untruths. I stopped watching after it claimed that St. Thomas believed in flat earth, attempting to support this lie with distorted out of context quotes. Nobody familiar with his body of work could honestly say such a thing. He clearly and unmistakably taught globe earth.
-
I stopped watching after it claimed that St. Thomas believed in flat earth, attempting to support this lie with distorted out of context quotes.
Except that the video never claimed that, just citing what St. Thomas believed in a solid firmament with waters above it, and said that this was consistent with the FE cosmology ... i.e. flies in the face of NASA cosmology of the ball floating around in space. You appear to be very educated, but I often see a lot of sloppy thinking and poor logic, where you conflate things. You often cite St. Thomas as your authority for ball earth, but then you don't accept what he holds regarding the firmament.
It would be interesting to map out what St. Thomas' cosmology might look like give that he did believe that the earth was spherical, and yet that there was a solid firmament above it. I'm guessing that in his view the firmament surrounded the entire earth, but that within the firmament you had the spherical earth. He also wrote about how this entire thing earth + firmament was suspended in the middle of the waters.
I have a feeling that some of these thinkers felt that the earth was spherical but then denied that there was solid land down there or at the very least that there were inhabitants on the underside of the earth.
See, here's the thing. Church Fathers and Medieval thinkers did not have a concept of gravity. So what, then, would cause people to stick to the bottom of a ball? In fact, one of the early cosmological debates among the waters was how the earth, firmament, i.e. the world could be suspended in the waters without "sinking" to the "bottom". That's why some held the world was hemispherical in shape, because the land would sink to the bottom of the water-filled cosmos, being heavier than water. St. Augustine thought it was tenable since even if the world were at the bottom-center of the universe, that would still be considered the center (note his assumption that the world must be at the center of the universe). Others posited that there was some rotation in the universe's water that kept the earth suspended. But for them up was up and down was down, so they didn't have some notion of gravity that would cause people to stick to the bottom of a ball.
-
When I look at non-Catholic sources, I take their biases into account and read with suspicion. This particular video contained clear untruths. I stopped watching after it claimed that St. Thomas believed in flat earth, attempting to support this lie with distorted out of context quotes. Nobody familiar with his body of work could honestly say such a thing. He clearly and unmistakably taught globe earth.
Please provide unmistakable proof that St. Thomas Aquinas believed earth is a globe.
Do you have an explanation for the firmament/dome Thomas believed in and how it fit over a globe? Can you also explain where the waters above the firmament can be found on a globe?
The guy in the video made an assumption based on Aquinas' belief in the firmament as well as his respect for the flat earth Fathers of the Church that went before him. In fact, that this Protestant sourced from the Fathers of the Church because he recognized they largely believed the same as each other is quite surprising--good eye from a Prot.
-
Please provide unmistakable proof that St. Thomas Aquinas believed earth is a globe.
Do you have an explanation for the firmament/dome Thomas believed in and how it fit over a globe? Can you also explain where the waters above the firmament can be found on a globe?
The guy in the video made an assumption based on Aquinas' belief in the firmament as well as his respect for the flat earth Fathers of the Church that went before him. In fact, that this Protestant sourced from the Fathers of the Church because he recognized they largely believed the same as each other is quite surprising--good eye from a Prot.
Although, if I remember correctly, the quote from St. Thomas isn't 100% clear proof that he believed in a globe I'm inclined to believe it is much, much more probable that he did. I don't remember the exact quote but it's like he assumes the globe was proven in a conditional statement I think.
-
I think that this debate we're having is illustrates a false dichotomy that's long been in play out there, that either the world is flat or else the world is NASA's ball floating through space. There seems to be an in-between type of cosmology, where the surface of the earth would be curved (to some extent). So, if you take this picture here:
(https://pursuingveritasdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/ancient-hebrew-view-of-universe.png)
Just in your mind continue drawing the firmament until it makes a circle (aka sphere in 3D) around the entire earth and waters. Now imagine rounding out the "earth" part of the picture until it looks more spherical. St. Hildegard, for instance, despite the fact that cassini and Sungenis wrongly cite her as backing NASA's space ball earth, clearly stated that the bottom part was uninhabitable due to the Greet Deep and Sheol being down there. So that would be like the above cosmology except extending the firmament all the way around the entire picture and then rounding the earth until it's more like a sphere.
-
Although, if I remember correctly, the quote from St. Thomas isn't 100% clear proof that he believed in a globe I'm inclined to believe it is much, much more probable that he did. I don't remember the exact quote but it's like he assumes the globe was proven in a conditional statement I think.
He basically cited Aristotle's proofs, including the old ship sailing over the edge, aka disappearing from the bottom up. But he did also believe in a solid firmament that kept waters off the earth. So it's somewhere in between, as I posted above. It's neither NASA's space ball, nor is it necessarily the typical FE model, but something in between.
-
Although, if I remember correctly, the quote from St. Thomas isn't 100% clear proof that he believed in a globe I'm inclined to believe it is much, much more probable that he did. I don't remember the exact quote but it's like he assumes the globe was proven in a conditional statement I think.
You seem to be thinking of his often cited reference to globe earth in the Summa:
Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) is obtained. For the astronomer (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02025a.htm) and the physicist (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12047a.htm) both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02025a.htm) by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm)), but the physicist (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12047a.htm) by means of matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) itself.
In the Latin it is clear that it is not a conditional because he uses indicative rather than subjunctive mood for the verb. It is a statement that the earth is round.
I think, however, that clearer (since it does not require knowledge of Latin) evidence of St. Thomas's belief in globe earth is found in his commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo:
Book II Lecture 27
532. Having determined the truth about the earth's place and about its motion or rest, the Philosopher here determines the truth about its shape. First he proves that the earth is spherical with natural reasons taken on the part of motion; Secondly, with mathematical and astronomical reasons based on sense observations.
St.Thomas says that the truth about the shape of the earth is that it is spherical.
-
Except that the video never claimed that, just citing what St. Thomas believed in a solid firmament with waters above it, and said that this was consistent with the FE cosmology ... i.e. flies in the face of NASA cosmology of the ball floating around in space. You appear to be very educated, but I often see a lot of sloppy thinking and poor logic, where you conflate things. You often cite St. Thomas as your authority for ball earth, but then you don't accept what he holds regarding the firmament.
The video claimed that they were giving clear proof that medieval thinkers believed in flat earth. I am not willing to watch it again to quote the exact words.
I often cite St. Thomas to show that it is not likely to be contrary to Catholic teaching to believe in globe earth or to show how common the belief was in Catholic history. I do not cite St. Thomas as an authority on science. I rarely discuss the science aspects of this at all. I am interested in the theology and history aspects.
-
Although, if I remember correctly, the quote from St. Thomas isn't 100% clear proof that he believed in a globe I'm inclined to believe it is much, much more probable that he did. I don't remember the exact quote but it's like he assumes the globe was proven in a conditional statement I think.
Yea, Thomas isn't entirely forthcoming about his final decision, although he does appear to support the Fathers who did not think earth was a globe because of his appreciation for the firmament. As I remember, in his big digression about Aristotle's opinion, Thomas seems to come to the conclusion that if the earth is moving, it's probably a globe, but that if it's stationary, it has to be flat. In fact, there is a traditional flat earth priest I know who says that, in his personal opinion, that's the proof Thomas didn't believe earth is a globe.
-
Yea, Thomas isn't entirely forthcoming about his final decision, although he does appear to support the Fathers who did not think earth was a globe because of his appreciation for the firmament. As I remember, in his big digression about Aristotle's opinion, Thomas seems to come to the conclusion that if the earth is moving, it's probably a globe, but that if it's stationary, it has to be flat. In fact, there is a traditional flat earth priest I know who says that, in his personal opinion, that's the proof Thomas didn't believe earth is a globe.
I guess I'll take a look again then.
-
I guess I'll take a look again then.
Great, because many of us would be interested to know what you find. It's one reason why the subject is so important. More people doing more research to find the truth.
-
The video claimed that they were giving clear proof that medieval thinkers believed in flat earth. I am not willing to watch it again to quote the exact words.
Video never claimed that St. Thomas believed in a Flat Earth, nor did he say that all Medieval thinkers believed in a Flat Earth. I don't think you were paying close enough attention to the actual words he was using. His main thesis was to dispel the notion that no one since about 500 BC believed that the earth was flat.
-
Yea, Thomas isn't entirely forthcoming about his final decision, although he does appear to support the Fathers who did not think earth was a globe because of his appreciation for the firmament. As I remember, in his big digression about Aristotle's opinion, Thomas seems to come to the conclusion that if the earth is moving, it's probably a globe, but that if it's stationary, it has to be flat. In fact, there is a traditional flat earth priest I know who says that, in his personal opinion, that's the proof Thomas didn't believe earth is a globe.
That is one tricky aspect of this, that St. Thomas is merely commenting upon Aristotle. While it may be reasonably inferred that he agrees with Aristotle, it's not 100%, and typically such commentaries would be done earlier in one's career as a Philosopher/Theologian. Due to an attitude of humility, it would have been considered great hubris for someone to write his own works without first having widely read what others have to say on the matter. So you started by reading and commenting on what others had written. It may even have been considered arrogant to disagree with their conclusions at that time. If you were teaching Aristotle, it would be like explaining what Aristotle was saying rather than writing your own textbook and refuting Aristotle.
-
One thing I found interesting in a quote from one of the Church Fathers cited by Dr. Sungenis was where the Father in question said that there were many theories about the shape of the earth and that just as soon as one became widely accepted, a new one would pop up, and the old one would be discredited. He was using that to illustrate the unreliability of scientists in general. Outside the question of FE proper, this also dispels the notion that the "entire world" believed in NASA's ball-floating-through-space earth model since 500 B.C.
-
Video never claimed that St. Thomas believed in a Flat Earth, nor did he say that all Medieval thinkers believed in a Flat Earth. I don't think you were paying close enough attention to the actual words he was using. His main thesis was to dispel the notion that no one since about 500 BC believed that the earth was flat.
By talking about St. Thomas they were giving the impression that he was one of these alleged Medieval thinkers who believed the earth was flat, even if they did not explicitly say it. They were being dishonest, whatever the actual words were. There was no good reason to mention him at all, since he clearly believed the earth is a sphere and mentioned it multiple places throughout his work.
-
By talking about St. Thomas they were giving the impression that he was one of these alleged Medieval thinkers who believed the earth was flat, even if they did not explicitly say it. They were being dishonest, whatever the actual words were. There was no good reason to mention him at all, since he clearly believed the earth is a sphere and mentioned it multiple places throughout his work.
You read that into it. I did not. He even explicitly stated at one point that he didn't agree with everything St. Thomas said about the shape of the earth.
-
That is one tricky aspect of this, that St. Thomas is merely commenting upon Aristotle. While it may be reasonably inferred that he agrees with Aristotle, it's not 100%, and typically such commentaries would be done earlier in one's career as a Philosopher/Theologian. Due to an attitude of humility, it would have been considered great hubris for someone to write his own works without first having widely read what others have to say on the matter. So you started by reading and commenting on what others had written. It may even have been considered arrogant to disagree with their conclusions at that time. If you were teaching Aristotle, it would be like explaining what Aristotle was saying rather than writing your own textbook and refuting Aristotle.
Definitely something to consider.
-
That is one tricky aspect of this, that St. Thomas is merely commenting upon Aristotle. While it may be reasonably inferred that he agrees with Aristotle, it's not 100%, and typically such commentaries would be done earlier in one's career as a Philosopher/Theologian.
What is ambiguous about saying that Aristotle "determines the truth about [the earth's] shape. First he proves that the earth is spherical with natural reasons taken on the part of motion; Secondly, with mathematical and astronomical reasons based on sense observations"? One does not refer to something as "the truth" if one is merely commenting on a belief that one does not share.
-
Just a question.
How do flat earthers explain Magellan, Drake and other ships that have circuмnavigated the world if it's not a globe?
I don't understand how people believe this FE stuff.
Look at the UN map (it's a FE map).
Go back and look at the video and you will see that point to which all magnets point (which is called "north") is at the center.
What we call "south" is the ice wall which circles the FE.
What we call "circuмnavigation" is actually similar to the path of the sun as seen in the video.
Finding the truth requires an open mind and the humility to deal with the fact that we've been lied to about evolution, heliocentric, Freemasonic NASA fake flight to the moon, faked Big Blue Marble art work yada yada.
-
What is ambiguous about saying that Aristotle "determines the truth about [the earth's] shape. First he proves that the earth is spherical with natural reasons taken on the part of motion; Secondly, with mathematical and astronomical reasons based on sense observations"? One does not refer to something as "the truth" if one is merely commenting on a belief that one does not share.
Seems pretty unambiguous to me. Just like when the Bible says the flood gates in the firmament were opened.
-
Please provide unmistakable proof that St. Thomas Aquinas believed earth is a globe.
.
There's this quote from the Summa, I-Iae, Art. 1 ad 2um (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm):
For the astronomer (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02025a.htm) and the physicist (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12047a.htm) both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02025a.htm) by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm)), but the physicist (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12047a.htm) by means of matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) itself.
-
What propels the sun through the air on a ball earth?
Do you believe the earth is spinning or the sun revolves around the ball? In either case, what propels it?
Is there an explanation for what makes it go in a circle rather than another direction?
.
The movement of the heavenly bodies is a mystery in every system of astronomy, but since they clearly move, something is obviously moving them.
It is definitely possible for one heavenly body to orbit another. Even if you don't believe in the moon orbiting the earth, anyone with even a cheap telescope can see the moons of Jupiter orbiting that planet, so that type of motion is definitely possible. It is completely reasonable to say that the sun and moon move around the earth in the same type of movement as we see the moons of Jupiter orbiting that planet.
But there is no otherwise observable example of the type of movement that flat earthers posit is how the sun and moon move around the earth. This is another major problem with flat earth theory.
-
There's this quote from the Summa, I-Iae, Art. 1 ad 2um (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm):
That's actually rather weak, as "round" can mean a number of things. Better citation would be from his commentary on Aristotle. Even then, it's not 100% clear whether he's merely explaining Aristotle or advocating his own position, something which gets a little blurry in commentaries.
-
What propels the sun through the air in the flat earth theory? And what makes it move in a circle? If you throw a rock through the air, it doesn't move in a circle. If you trace a line on the earth over the path it would take, the line would be perfectly straight. I am not aware of any object that moves in the air over the earth's surface in such a way that, if you were to trace its path on the ground, the path would be circular. The closest thing would be a boomerang, I guess, but even those things go in somewhat of a curve but definitely not a circle.
And if there is no known case of any other object moving in such a manner, how do we know such movement is even physically possible?
God made it. We don't understand it, but we don't understand LIFE either, and many other things which scientists REFUSE to admit, or PRETEND they understand, but really don't.
All glory be to God. He created the earth and the heavens, and the powers of heaven. He made it like a clock.
Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.
[Psalms 103:5 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=103&l=5#x)]
-
The Book of Enoch explains that various types of angels are in charge of the sun, moon, stars, weather etc. Especially the weather.
-
But there is no otherwise observable example of the type of movement that flat earthers posit is how the sun and moon move around the earth. This is another major problem with flat earth theory.
Actually there is. It's the star trails. They rotate above with Polaris in the center.
Observation of these star trails can only be explained on a Flat Earth.
4min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/67YAk9MF6yvv/
-
https://www.bitchute.com/video/B4gnqkq416CW/
Direct answers to your questions plus a history of the Catholic Church protecting the flat earth.
Watched it. Unimpressed but intrigued. Most poignant point is Columbus' likely foreknowledge of the New World.
It'd be great if there were publicly available docuмents of the debate of Columbus and the Spanish court. I'll look into it sometime.
-
How do shadows work on a flat Earth.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cuuh9c2gTdG/?igshid=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==
-
How do shadows work on a flat Earth.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cuuh9c2gTdG/?igshid=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==
I thought you're some kind of expert on the question of creation but it seems I was fooled. This is the most basic of issues and you'd know the answer if you either thought about it for a second or did some honest research.
Here's your hint: there's a hidden assumption that is begging the question. What is the assumption he makes that the Flat Earth reality contradicts?
-
Yes, I can't believe that people still use the Eratosthenes bunk. To explain your hint, Marulus, the Eratosthenes experiment required an assumption to be made regarding the size of the sun and its distance from the earth. If the sun were closer and smaller, the results would be the same on a flat earth surface. That's assuming this story about Eratosthenes wasn't made up to begin with. If the rays of the sun are (roughly) parallel, then this experiment would indicate curvature. If they are not, then it's no indication of curvature.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FhESIuuUcAAkkNY?format=jpg&name=large)
-
I thought you're some kind of expert on the question of creation but it seems I was fooled. This is the most basic of issues and you'd know the answer if you either thought about it for a second or did some honest research.
Here's your hint: there's a hidden assumption that is begging the question. What is the assumption he makes that the Flat Earth reality contradicts?
First of all Marulus I posted this website as part of this debate. I made no comment, merely wrote down the question. Interestingly, once again the response begins with a personal insult inferring ignorance of some sort on the person who even asked the question. There is no other debate on CIF conducted in such a way that needs to insult the poster before answering the question or not.
Ladislaus answered if the sun was nearer and smaller then it would have the same effect. His illustration is excellent, but it confirms for me that relativity exists in both the FEvGE as well as GvH. In more words, it depends on the word IF which is no confirmation at all. Unless one can get out there far enough in space to confirm these things, it remains a kind of draw at the relativity level.
For me, geocentrism has been revealed by God and the Church, so in that case I can confirm G is correct. The shape of the Earth has not been confirmed by God or the Church so that is left up to one's own choice. Mine is a globe because every other sun, moon and planet is created as a globe. Eclipses are more simply explained by a global Earth. The science of geodesy, used throughout the world to measure the level of the land to prevent flooding etc, confirms the shape of the Earth is a globe. There is not a single argument against a global Earth other than it would be more 'miraculous' if it were flat. Unlike geocentrism however there is no scientific evidence pointing to a flat Earth rather than a globe.
FEs on CIF I see prefer a flat-earth because it definitely would confirm the Earth is special, and like geocentrism would further confirm the existence of God as Creator and man as His special creation. St Augustine however, warned against using proposals about the creation that tends to undermine the faith. Go ask the population of the world what shape the Earth is? I have no doubt 99% will say a globe. Associate belief in a flat Earth with the Catholic faith will do the faith no good.
So Marulus, by all means argue your belief in a flat Earth but stop trying to convince others of it by way of insulting those who prefer the more reasonable global Earth. Stop trying to convince others it is more Catholic to believe in a flat Earth than a global Earth. Go ask 100 Catholics what the Child of Prague is holding and 99% of them will probably say the Earth rather than the universe. The Earth is God's footstool, not the universe, so it is the special one.
-
For me, geocentrism has been revealed by God and the Church, so in that case I can confirm G is correct. The shape of the Earth has not been confirmed by God or the Church so that is left up to one's own choice.
Agreed. I do nevertheless hold that the existence of a firmament and H2O waters above the firmament is also such a teaching of God and the Church, unanimously understood to be literal by the Church Fathers. I have yet to see an adequate explanation for the firmament from a geocentrist, having seen Dr. Sungenis on tape saying that "the firmament is space".
-
First of all Marulus I posted this website as part of this debate. I made no comment, merely wrote down the question. Interestingly, once again the response begins with a personal insult inferring ignorance of some sort on the person who even asked the question. There is no other debate on CIF conducted in such a way that needs to insult the poster before answering the question or not.
Ladislaus answered if the sun was nearer and smaller then it would have the same effect. His illustration is excellent, but it confirms for me that relativity exists in both the FEvGE as well as GvH. In more words, it depends on the word IF which is no confirmation at all. Unless one can get out there far enough in space to confirm these things, it remains a kind of draw at the relativity level.
For me, geocentrism has been revealed by God and the Church, so in that case I can confirm G is correct. The shape of the Earth has not been confirmed by God or the Church so that is left up to one's own choice. Mine is a globe because every other sun, moon and planet is created as a globe. Eclipses are more simply explained by a global Earth. The science of geodesy, used throughout the world to measure the level of the land to prevent flooding etc, confirms the shape of the Earth is a globe. There is not a single argument against a global Earth other than it would be more 'miraculous' if it were flat. Unlike geocentrism however there is no scientific evidence pointing to a flat Earth rather than a globe.
FEs on CIF I see prefer a flat-earth because it definitely would confirm the Earth is special, and like geocentrism would further confirm the existence of God as Creator and man as His special creation. St Augustine however, warned against using proposals about the creation that tends to undermine the faith. Go ask the population of the world what shape the Earth is? I have no doubt 99% will say a globe. Associate belief in a flat Earth with the Catholic faith will do the faith no good.
So Marulus, by all means argue your belief in a flat Earth but stop trying to convince others of it by way of insulting those who prefer the more reasonable global Earth. Stop trying to convince others it is more Catholic to believe in a flat Earth than a global Earth. Go ask 100 Catholics what the Child of Prague is holding and 99% of them will probably say the Earth rather than the universe. The Earth is God's footstool, not the universe, so it is the special one.
Here is proof that stars are not globes. I've taken videos like this and shared them, so I know this is exactly what you see when you observe the stars up close with a capable zoom lens.
https://youtu.be/nr6g7Pe92C4
-
Here is proof that stars are not globes. I've taken videos like this and shared them, so I know this is exactly what you see when you observe the stars up close with a capable zoom lens.
https://youtu.be/nr6g7Pe92C4
And I have already refuted that. Most importantly it would take like 10,000x zoom, if I remember correctly, to maybe see the orb of some of the closest stars as a tiny speck. They are that far away. Also, atmospheric distortion would make it impossible to clearly see a star as small as they are due to distance, and the p900 has relatively poor quality optics. You'd need an array of extremely precise telescopes to have a chance at getting a clear image of a star from the ground, as far as I know.
-
And I have already refuted that. Most importantly it would take like 10,000x zoom, if I remember correctly, to maybe see the orb of some of the closest stars as a tiny speck. They are that far away. Also, atmospheric distortion would make it impossible to clearly see a star as small as they are due to distance, and the p900 has relatively poor quality optics. You'd need an array of extremely precise telescopes to have a chance at getting a clear image of a star from the ground, as far as I know.
Have you done this experiment? You assume stars are millions of miles away because NASA tells you that. Not only is their massive lie proven wrong by videos like this, many other people have discovered the same thing and shared it everywhere. I've seen many of these by various individuals before they were taken down by Youtube and other gatekeepers. Stars are not worlds, they are lights. And they are not too far away to video. Stars are relatively small lights just above us in the firmament. I've personally taken videos like this with my P900 and posted them. Ignoring or denying the results of honest experiments to see if NASA is telling the truth and even that prove NASA is lying, isn't going to help anyone.
-
Agreed. I do nevertheless hold that the existence of a firmament and H2O waters above the firmament is also such a teaching of God and the Church, unanimously understood to be literal by the Church Fathers. I have yet to see an adequate explanation for the firmament from a geocentrist, having seen Dr. Sungenis on tape saying that "the firmament is space".
6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 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. 8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
The Douay Rheims bible then adds:
[6] "A firmament": By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.
I disagree. It makes more sense to me to consider the firmament is the created oxygen filled space surrounding the Earth. It lies between the waters of the oceans on Earth and the clouds (waters) over this special space that life depends on. Both these waters are visible to man. A water outside the highest stars serves no purpose, cannot be seen so is a meaningless addition to God's creation. The oxygen firmament also infers that no other moon or planet made viable to Earth by God has such a 'firmament,' that is, a special creation in itself. Outside my interpretation of firmament we know is different. It has no life sustaining oxygen which makes the Air filled firmament a special creation by God around the Earth, worthy of His isolating it in His Creation revelation. As for 'heaven,' well that is covered by any interpretation of the firmament, it remains up there in the sky no matter how far that is.
Anyway, both meanings are attributed to God's Creation unlike the atheist Dawkins.
‘Q: “Do you think science will ever discover evidence to substantiate Catholic dogma like transubstantiation or the Ascension?”
Richard Dawkins A: “No, of course not. Where would the body of Christ go if it ascended? No one believes that heaven is up there, so how could it ascend?”’ (R. Dawkins; quoted in Dan Burstein & Arne de Keijzer’s Secrets of Angels & Demons; p.192.)
-
A water outside the highest stars serves no purpose,
In your limited knowledge.
so is a meaningless addition to God's creation.
Right. God creates meaningless things. :facepalm:
-
6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 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. 8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
The Douay Rheims bible then adds:
[6] "A firmament": By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.
I disagree. It makes more sense to me to consider the firmament is the created oxygen filled space surrounding the Earth. It lies between the waters of the oceans on Earth and the clouds (waters) over this special space that life depends on. Both these waters are visible to man. A water outside the highest stars serves no purpose, cannot be seen so is a meaningless addition to God's creation. The oxygen firmament also infers that no other moon or planet made viable to Earth by God has such a 'firmament,' that is, a special creation in itself. Outside my interpretation of firmament we know is different. It has no life sustaining oxygen which makes the Air filled firmament a special creation by God around the Earth, worthy of His isolating it in His Creation revelation. As for 'heaven,' well that is covered by any interpretation of the firmament, it remains up there in the sky no matter how far that is.
Anyway, both meanings are attributed to God's Creation unlike the atheist Dawkins.
‘Q: “Do you think science will ever discover evidence to substantiate Catholic dogma like transubstantiation or the Ascension?”
Richard Dawkins A: “No, of course not. Where would the body of Christ go if it ascended? No one believes that heaven is up there, so how could it ascend?”’ (R. Dawkins; quoted in Dan Burstein & Arne de Keijzer’s Secrets of Angels & Demons; p.192.)
What is your proof that the firmament is merely oxygen filled space?
"St. Augustine said the word firmament was used 'to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below' (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61)." - p. 236"
-
Have you done this experiment? You assume stars are millions of miles away because NASA tells you that. Not only is their massive lie proven wrong by videos like this, many other people have discovered the same thing and shared it everywhere. I've seen many of these by various individuals before they were taken down by Youtube and other gatekeepers. Stars are not worlds, they are lights. And they are not too far away to video. Stars are relatively small lights just above us in the firmament. I've personally taken videos like this with my P900 and posted them. Ignoring or denying the results of honest experiments to see if NASA is telling the truth and even that prove NASA is lying, isn't going to help anyone.
In Genesis 22:17 and Hebrews 11:12, we find a comparison between the number of stars in the sky with the finite numbers of grains of sand by the seashore.
‘For which cause there sprung even from one (and him as good as dead) as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.’--- Douay Rheims, Epistle of St Paul to the Hebrews, 11:12.
First I agree, stars are light generating bodies created by God.
If Tradman, I gave you a cup of sand/stars, how big would that cup have to be? Now imagine the number of grains of sand by the sea shore and imagine the size of the universe needed to house them all? How far away would the furthest out be? Such a contrast teaches us the omnipotence of God by star numbers and indeed by the space needed to accommodate these created bodies; as such numbers would need a universe of immeasurable distances for so many. In his book City of God (Vol. 1, Ch.23), St Augustine addressed this very revelation:
‘But as for their numbers, who sees not that the sands do far exceed the stars? Herein you may say they are not comparable in that they are both innumerable. For we cannot think that one can see all the stars, but the more earnestly he beholds them the more he sees: so that we may well suppose that there are some that deceive the sharpest eyes, besides those that arise in other horizons out of sight.’
-
In Genesis 22:17 and Hebrews 11:12, we find a comparison between the number of stars in the sky with the finite numbers of grains of sand by the seashore.
‘For which cause there sprung even from one (and him as good as dead) as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.’--- Douay Rheims, Epistle of St Paul to the Hebrews, 11:12.
First I agree, stars are light generating bodies created by God.
If Tradman, I gave you a cup of sand/stars, how big would that cup have to be? Now imagine the number of grains of sand by the sea shore and imagine the size of the universe needed to house them all? How far away would the furthest out be? Such a contrast teaches us the omnipotence of God by star numbers and indeed by the space needed to accommodate these created bodies; as such numbers would need a universe of immeasurable distances for so many. In his book City of God (Vol. 1, Ch.23), St Augustine addressed this very revelation:
‘But as for their numbers, who sees not that the sands do far exceed the stars? Herein you may say they are not comparable in that they are both innumerable. For we cannot think that one can see all the stars, but the more earnestly he beholds them the more he sees: so that we may well suppose that there are some that deceive the sharpest eyes, besides those that arise in other horizons out of sight.’
There's no contradiction. We know there are an incredibly vast number of stars, even some we cannot see, hanging in the firmament over the flat earth. We can't even say that the stars themselves aren't the size of grains of sand in actuality, or maybe somewhat larger, but still small, just super powered and brilliant so that their light reaches earth from way up. We just know that stars aren't huge worlds because we can see for ourselves that they are twinkling lights. The Fathers say the height of the firmament is quite lofty, not to mention the vast area between distances to the edges of the earth. There is some speculation from a lot of people that more land exists so that distance extending 4 different directions might be many times larger than what we are aware of. Doesn't matter either way. We can't determine, as far as I can tell, just how lofty the dome is or large of an area is involved, nor the size of the stars, just that the number of stars is vast, even to the point they're compared to grains of sand.
Augustine's explanation later shows that he recognizes the sheer number of stars by accounting for many more unseen. Again, this changes nothing. Assuming stars are the size NASA claims is where the problem begins.
-
Have you done this experiment? You assume stars are millions of miles away because NASA tells you that. Not only is their massive lie proven wrong by videos like this, many other people have discovered the same thing and shared it everywhere. I've seen many of these by various individuals before they were taken down by Youtube and other gatekeepers. Stars are not worlds, they are lights. And they are not too far away to video. Stars are relatively small lights just above us in the firmament. I've personally taken videos like this with my P900 and posted them. Ignoring or denying the results of honest experiments to see if NASA is telling the truth and even that prove NASA is lying, isn't going to help anyone.
That tells us a lot.
Why are they so intent on censoring what most people have been carefully taught is a "crackpot" idea?
-
Here is proof that stars are not globes. I've taken videos like this and shared them, so I know this is exactly what you see when you observe the stars up close with a capable zoom lens.
https://youtu.be/nr6g7Pe92C4
Have you done this experiment? You assume stars are millions of miles away because NASA tells you that. Not only is their massive lie proven wrong by videos like this, many other people have discovered the same thing and shared it everywhere. I've seen many of these by various individuals before they were taken down by Youtube and other gatekeepers. Stars are not worlds, they are lights. And they are not too far away to video. Stars are relatively small lights just above us in the firmament. I've personally taken videos like this with my P900 and posted them. Ignoring or denying the results of honest experiments to see if NASA is telling the truth and even that prove NASA is lying, isn't going to help anyone.
Firstly, no scientist I am aware of (modern, NASA, or otherwise) has ever made the claim that they could actually visually "see" the "globe" or "disc" of a star with an optical instrument, even via long-exposure photography. Modern scientists DO think of the sun as a "star" (and since the sun has a globe/disc shape when viewed through a solar telescope, their thought process is that other "stars" are similarly shaped). Obviously this is open to discussion.
However, in a good-sized telescope with excellent in-focus optics, the stars don't look anything like the amorphous "boiling" shapes captured in that video via the Nikon camera telephoto lens. In a high-quality telescope, the stars are said to look like clean and tight pinpoints of light, even when you push the magnification to its highest (and this is my personal experience as well). At a certain point, if you push the telescope's magnification beyond it's limit, you start to actually see more of the irregularities of the optics themselves than the actual object you are looking at. This can be proved by looking at the same star at the same time with different telescopes of known and varying optical quality. All practical experience with telescopes (and not just NASA or modern side of things) indicates that the actual surfaces and shapes of the stars cannot be seen by eye, regardless of magnification or the size of telescope. The standard explanation given is extreme distance. This is in contrast to the planets, all of which can be resolved into discs of varying sizes given an appropriate-sized telescope.
The problem is that the camera/telephoto zoom lens is the wrong tool for the job if you want to try and resolve small objects in the night sky. You don't just need magnification, but much larger aperture (larger diameter of the main lens), which actually is more directly related to resolution potential than magnification. The "boiling" irregular images in that video aren't really the surfaces of the stars at all, but basically de-focused blurs of the light coming from the stars. Those blurs just show how bad the quality of the camera lens is. At 1:15, for example, the triangle shape of Venus (and the other objects) is due to astigmatism somewhere in the optical train, which creates spiky or triangle-shaped images. I've observed Venus many times with a moderate-sized telescope, and it is always a sharp gibbous shape or crescent, never that mushy "boiling" triangle shape. The only way you can arrive at a similar image to the camera one in the video via a telescope, good or bad, is to throw the telescope out of focus. So overall as St. Giles indicated, that video proves nothing. One needs an astronomical telescope to accurately assess these objects, not a telephoto lens, and even then the stars will appear as pinpricks of light.
-
That tells us a lot.
Why are they so intent on censoring what most people have been carefully taught is a "crackpot" idea?
It does say a lot. Censoring is a sure sign it's important for them to keep you from knowing.
-
However, in a good-sized telescope with excellent in-focus optics, the stars don't look anything like the amorphous "boiling" shapes captured in that video via the Nikon camera telephoto lens. In a high-quality telescope, the stars are said to look like clean and tight pinpoints of light, even when you push the magnification to its highest (and this is my personal experience as well).
I did several experiments with a friend who had a powerful highly advanced 10" telescope and I had my P900. His telescope saw a fraction of what my camera picked up and maybe that was the problem, but the fact that both of us got pictures and video is a testament to the fact the stars are not millions of miles away. Neither instrument can do that. Unless you want to call me a liar, the stars look exactly like the "boiling" shapes captured in that video and every star is totally different from every other star. Until you've done this with a p900 yourself, or realize there are a myriad of videos with similar results, taken by hundreds (or even thousands) of people who don't even know each other, and who are only trying to understand what is going on, you wouldn't be so willing to make this false assumption.
-
I did several experiments with a friend who had a powerful highly advanced 10" telescope and I had my P900. His telescope saw a fraction of what my camera picked up and maybe that was the problem, but the fact that both of us got pictures and video is a testament to the fact the stars are not millions of miles away. Neither instrument can do that. Unless you want to call me a liar, the stars look exactly like the "boiling" shapes captured in that video and every star is totally different from every other star. Until you've done this with a p900 yourself, or realize there are a myriad of videos with similar results, taken by hundreds (or even thousands) of people who don't even know each other, and who are only trying to understand what is going on, you wouldn't be so willing to make this false assumption.
If you went through the math and considered variables such as the size of stars, their claimed distance, atmospheric distortion, and the tolerances of telescopes and cameras, you will find both the explanation to what you see, and you will realise how extremely difficult it would be to get a clear image of a star from earth's surface.
That camera and telescope are like little toys compared to what's needed. There's even problems with getting precise focus as changes in temperature change the size of the parts. Just try to look at a distant hill with a telescope, and you will see much distortion through all that air. Actually, poor quality images are often seen in daytime p900 videos at max zoom. Depending on how good your eyes are you can learn to pick up on small details until you clearly see how cameras like the p900 are far inferior in image quality compared to a pro grade camera. I used to think highly of a little camera of mine of the same quality as the p900, but without the high zoom, until I started using a Canon 6D.
The main problem with image quality comes from pixel size on the sensor, and ISO sensitivity. What was the ISO number when you take videos like that? If it says ISO AUTO you need to at least try to find what aperture number and shutter speed number were used, then manually set the ISO until the video looks the same. Then, tell me the ISO number. If it is any higher than 400 on that camera, the quality will be bad, and even 400 looks bad in general. 100 looks good, but is still a several times worse clarity than a Canon 6D at 100.
Who are you to say what the limit is for how far light can travel? No offence, but you're almost acting like an atheist as in, the facts, math, and experiments exist to give you plenty of reason to believe stars are extremely far away and practically impossible to visually resolve from earth, but you don't want to believe like so many flat earthers. Like the Catholic faith has plenty going for it to be believed, but so many choose not to. I find it best to walk away and mull over things for a week as I can stubbornly be so attached to my reasoning that I can't see my error.
I do understand some of you're concern, because I sometimes see a star that flashes different colors and hadn't found any good explanation at the time. I haven't looked into it since, but why that star? I could come up with some hypotheses.
-
I did several experiments with a friend who had a powerful highly advanced 10" telescope and I had my P900. His telescope saw a fraction of what my camera picked up and maybe that was the problem, but the fact that both of us got pictures and video is a testament to the fact the stars are not millions of miles away. Neither instrument can do that.
If your meaning by the bolded text above is that you saw more detail in the Nikon P900 w/telephoto lens used alone than the 10" telescope used alone, than something is gravely wrong here with the acquisition or the interpretation of the images. The 10" telescope will always give more detail and brightness due to the larger aperture. If the telephoto lens + camera alone seemed to give a bigger image or more detail, what you are seeing in the camera is artificial and caused by the camera itself rather than a feature of the star or other object in question. It is most likely due to an inability of the telephoto lens (which is designed for land objects, not the sky) to focus on the star an resolve its light to a point. Or, poor optical quality of the camera is scattering the light and distorting it. If your friend's 10" telescope produced images exactly like the ones in the youtube video, it is out of focus and/or has some serious optical problems.
Unless you want to call me a liar, the stars look exactly like the "boiling" shapes captured in that video and every star is totally different from every other star.
To be clear I'm not calling you a liar here or in the previous post, but I do think you are unfortunately mis-using your equipment (or using the wrong equipment for the job) and are misinterpreting the results you are getting. De-focused stars will always look like those boiling shapes, and each defocused star may indeed look different from the other. The problem is, de-focused boiling star shapes don't tell you much about the object in question other than the quality of the optics you are using. It would be like defocusing a pair of binoculars looking at a cardinal bird until all you see is a red blob; it doesn't tell you much about the characteristics of the object, other than the fact it is red. Look up "star testing" of telescopes and the "airy disc".
In-focus, when testing the optics, the star should look like a point. as you de-focus on either side, it will expand to a symmetrical disc with rings within it. Asymmetry or irregularity (as in the video) means problems with optical quality, or thermal/atmospheric disturbances
( https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/how-to-star-test-a-telescope/ )
Until you've done this with a p900 yourself, or realize there are a myriad of videos with similar results, taken by hundreds (or even thousands) of people who don't even know each other, and who are only trying to understand what is going on, you wouldn't be so willing to make this false assumption.
I've used quite a few digital cameras, binoculars, and telescopes over the years, and could easily replicate the boiling blobs you are seeing. The problem is that once again in order to replicate this, you need to de-focus the image, which defeats the whole purpose of looking at the object in the first place, unless you are testing optical quality. Take a pair of binoculars, look at a star, focus it to a point, and then de-focus it a little and that will approximate the boiling blobs you are seeing in your camera or in that youtube video. And yes, a lot of folks out there sadly don't know how to use their equipment; they mean well, but are mistaken. There are also a lot of folks who do know how to use their equipment who report the stars as pinpoints. And these aren't NASA "elites", but folks who chat on public forums just like this one.
-
Have you done this experiment? You assume stars are millions of miles away because NASA tells you that. Not only is their massive lie proven wrong by videos like this, many other people have discovered the same thing and shared it everywhere. I've seen many of these by various individuals before they were taken down by Youtube and other gatekeepers. Stars are not worlds, they are lights. And they are not too far away to video. Stars are relatively small lights just above us in the firmament. I've personally taken videos like this with my P900 and posted them. Ignoring or denying the results of honest experiments to see if NASA is telling the truth and even that prove NASA is lying, isn't going to help anyone.
Is it even possible that you just might not understand the results of your experiment? A good scientist who seeks the truth will try his experiment to prove that it means what he thinks it means. Ideally, you would try taking videos with different cameras with the same zoom capability. Also you would determine a way to check the accuracy of the focus of each camera, because they do often make mistakes, even big mistakes when it comes to focus. Also, you would rule out the causes of any similarities and differences in the way the star looks. Which lens has the dirt that causes certain phenomenon, or is it on the sensor? Is the image really what the camera sees, or is the sensor data processor causing significant alterations to make the best of poor quality optics and high ISO all while keeping the file size small?
Also, I have had my YT account deleted by YT, and they have deleted several other's over the years for apparently no reason. It must have been some robot they used to clean and regulate the system, and it must have had false triggers for termination. My content was nothing bad, the same with many others, nothing controversial. Maybe it was because YT wanted ads on everyone's videos, but many people resisted.
-
If you went through the math and considered variables such as the size of stars, their claimed distance, atmospheric distortion, and the tolerances of telescopes and cameras, you will find both the explanation to what you see, and you will realise how extremely difficult it would be to get a clear image of a star from earth's surface.
That camera and telescope are like little toys compared to what's needed. There's even problems with getting precise focus as changes in temperature change the size of the parts. Just try to look at a distant hill with a telescope, and you will see much distortion through all that air. Actually, poor quality images are often seen in daytime p900 videos at max zoom. Depending on how good your eyes are you can learn to pick up on small details until you clearly see how cameras like the p900 are far inferior in image quality compared to a pro grade camera. I used to think highly of a little camera of mine of the same quality as the p900, but without the high zoom, until I started using a Canon 6D.
The main problem with image quality comes from pixel size on the sensor, and ISO sensitivity. What was the ISO number when you take videos like that? If it says ISO AUTO you need to at least try to find what aperture number and shutter speed number were used, then manually set the ISO until the video looks the same. Then, tell me the ISO number. If it is any higher than 400 on that camera, the quality will be bad, and even 400 looks bad in general. 100 looks good, but is still a several times worse clarity than a Canon 6D at 100.
Who are you to say what the limit is for how far light can travel? No offence, but you're almost acting like an atheist as in, the facts, math, and experiments exist to give you plenty of reason to believe stars are extremely far away and practically impossible to visually resolve from earth, but you don't want to believe like so many flat earthers. Like the Catholic faith has plenty going for it to be believed, but so many choose not to. I find it best to walk away and mull over things for a week as I can stubbornly be so attached to my reasoning that I can't see my error.
I do understand some of you're concern, because I sometimes see a star that flashes different colors and hadn't found any good explanation at the time. I haven't looked into it since, but why that star? I could come up with some hypotheses.
I just don't have confidence in NASA's claims to the size of stars, nor their inaccurately pictured appearance as hard or gas bodies. They appear electromagnetic in their behavior.
If the camera and telescope we used were little toys, if the stars were millions of miles away, how were we able to view the stars at all? I don't pretend my camera has capabilities it doesn't. Not even NASA can see things millions of miles away with their equipment, but then, that's our contention here. I don't trust NASA and find they lie a lot. From what I can tell, stars are probably less than 5000 miles away, since even that would be a stretch for my camera across a plane or body of water. I've seen the videos that claim our P900cameras are out of focus and how to set the ISO for a worse picture clarity. No doubt the producers of those videos work for NASA.
While you're looking, take some time to search out and check other videos of other named stars and their variable shapes and colors. Sirius is clearly the most colorful and eye-catching, but there are others. What is most fascinating is that they are obviously not orbs or bodies, since we can see through different areas, even the center at times, but obviously lights of some sort.
-
An interesting tangent: the size of lenses required to have the same zoom capability as the p900, but on large sensor cameras like the 6D https://pixelpluck.com/battle-of-biggest-zoom-lenses-ever/
I'm not saying that NASA is right, but there is too much evidence in favor of the possibility that NASA is right, not their artistically enhanced images, but real observations that is easily backed by math that at least shows what they say is possible, if not certainly true.
How small is light? If even 1 photon makes it to your camera all night long, that photon had to come from somewhere. How do you rule out it didn't come from a star (assuming we are trying to image stars at night)? Consider how big NASA says the sun is. If stars are that big, and considering how small photons are and how bright the sun is, that is an enormous number of photons released per millisecond of which we only need a grain of sand worth to see. it is very easy for those few rare photons that just happened to be aimed right at earth to reach us in enough quantity to see. It is also not hard to understand how very distant galaxies can be visible when a camera is left to collect light from them over several days at high sensitivity. with a billion stars the size of the sun or larger in one galaxy, as big and spread out as NASA says galaxies are, surely enough photons perfectly aimed at earth will accuмulate over several days to make the image of a faint little galaxy.
Just don't rule it out. You don't have to trust NASA, but I don't see enough evidence to rule it out. If you poke a stick into water, it looks bent, so it is bent right? Wrong.
-
:facepalm: I would have taking this as an honest question ... until your last sentence. This is really one of the simplest things to address. Whether you're on a globe or on a flat circle, in both cases you're simply going in a circle when you go around the earth. Do you imagine the FE model is the Mercator Projection where it just suddenly stops on either side. Perhaps if you'd educate yourself a bit first you'd be in more of a position to summarily reject "this FE stuff".
I'm not sure how else you would describe " flat Earth"?
And what do you mean by " flat circle?
Do you believe the world is round or not? You think it's a pancake or something?
No need to get emotional. Just asked a question.
and I don't have time to go through 5 pages of this insanity.
-
NASA claims we can see a star that's 28 BILLION LIGHT YEARS away, and others that are millions of light years away. That's just plain ridiculous.
1) due to the inverse-square rule of light, the light couldn't even be visible this far away regardless of the optics we have
2) due to the incredible distances involved, even the most massive object would have such low angular resolution as to no longer be visible
3) there would be so many objects between us and these stars that certainly something would be between us and those starts and they would not have an unobstructed view for millions and even billions of light years
4) Olbers' paradox indicates that if all these stars were visible for millions and billions of light years, our entire night sky would be lit up by them, as there would be no blackness there at all
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Olbers%27_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif/330px-Olbers%27_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif)
-
If your meaning by the bolded text above is that you saw more detail in the Nikon P900 w/telephoto lens used alone than the 10" telescope used alone, than something is gravely wrong here with the acquisition or the interpretation of the images. The 10" telescope will always give more detail and brightness due to the larger aperture. If the telephoto lens + camera alone seemed to give a bigger image or more detail, what you are seeing in the camera is artificial and caused by the camera itself rather than a feature of the star or other object in question. It is most likely due to an inability of the telephoto lens (which is designed for land objects, not the sky) to focus on the star an resolve its light to a point. Or, poor optical quality of the camera is scattering the light and distorting it. If your friend's 10" telescope produced images exactly like the ones in the youtube video, it is out of focus and/or has some serious optical problems.
To be clear I'm not calling you a liar here or in the previous post, but I do think you are unfortunately mis-using your equipment (or using the wrong equipment for the job) and are misinterpreting the results you are getting. De-focused stars will always look like those boiling shapes, and each defocused star may indeed look different from the other. The problem is, de-focused boiling star shapes don't tell you much about the object in question other than the quality of the optics you are using. It would be like defocusing a pair of binoculars looking at a cardinal bird until all you see is a red blob; it doesn't tell you much about the characteristics of the object, other than the fact it is red. Look up "star testing" of telescopes and the "airy disc".
In-focus, when testing the optics, the star should look like a point. as you de-focus on either side, it will expand to a symmetrical disc with rings within it. Asymmetry or irregularity (as in the video) means problems with optical quality, or thermal/atmospheric disturbances
( https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/how-to-star-test-a-telescope/ )
I've used quite a few digital cameras, binoculars, and telescopes over the years, and could easily replicate the boiling blobs you are seeing. The problem is that once again in order to replicate this, you need to de-focus the image, which defeats the whole purpose of looking at the object in the first place, unless you are testing optical quality. Take a pair of binoculars, look at a star, focus it to a point, and then de-focus it a little and that will approximate the boiling blobs you are seeing in your camera or in that youtube video. And yes, a lot of folks out there sadly don't know how to use their equipment; they mean well, but are mistaken. There are also a lot of folks who do know how to use their equipment who report the stars as pinpoints. And these aren't NASA "elites", but folks who chat on public forums just like this one.
We can disagree about the use of equipment, but the fact that the stars are provably not as described by NASA, there is a lot more work to do to get to the bottom of what is going on above us. I don't agree that the star should look like a point, unless I'm going by information provided by people I don't trust and ignoring what I found. The fact that you can replicate the stars as I've seen is maybe a sign you should ditch the preconceived ideas and look at your results independently. As far as the ordinary people, I've found they too can be influenced by NASA and come to conclusions that don't make sense.
-
An interesting tangent: the size of lenses required to have the same zoom capability as the p900, but on large sensor cameras like the 6D https://pixelpluck.com/battle-of-biggest-zoom-lenses-ever/
I'm not saying that NASA is right, but there is too much evidence in favor of the possibility that NASA is right, not their artistically enhanced images, but real observations that is easily backed by math that at least shows what they say is possible, if not certainly true.
How small is light? If even 1 photon makes it to your camera all night long, that photon had to come from somewhere. How do you rule out it didn't come from a star (assuming we are trying to image stars at night)? Consider how big NASA says the sun is. If stars are that big, and considering how small photons are and how bright the sun is, that is an enormous number of photons released per millisecond of which we only need a grain of sand worth to see. it is very easy for those few rare photons that just happened to be aimed right at earth to reach us in enough quantity to see. It is also not hard to understand how very distant galaxies can be visible when a camera is left to collect light from them over several days at high sensitivity. with a billion stars the size of the sun or larger in one galaxy, as big and spread out as NASA says galaxies are, surely enough photons perfectly aimed at earth will accuмulate over several days to make the image of a faint little galaxy.
Just don't rule it out. You don't have to trust NASA, but I don't see enough evidence to rule it out. If you poke a stick into water, it looks bent, so it is bent right? Wrong.
Just wondering...do you think man went to the moon?
-
Is it even possible that you just might not understand the results of your experiment? A good scientist who seeks the truth will try his experiment to prove that it means what he thinks it means. Ideally, you would try taking videos with different cameras with the same zoom capability. Also you would determine a way to check the accuracy of the focus of each camera, because they do often make mistakes, even big mistakes when it comes to focus. Also, you would rule out the causes of any similarities and differences in the way the star looks. Which lens has the dirt that causes certain phenomenon, or is it on the sensor? Is the image really what the camera sees, or is the sensor data processor causing significant alterations to make the best of poor quality optics and high ISO all while keeping the file size small?
Also, I have had my YT account deleted by YT, and they have deleted several other's over the years for apparently no reason. It must have been some robot they used to clean and regulate the system, and it must have had false triggers for termination. My content was nothing bad, the same with many others, nothing controversial. Maybe it was because YT wanted ads on everyone's videos, but many people resisted.
It's always possible I don't understand the results, but with others who produce the same results, the onus is on NASA and they aren't ever going to fess up if they're lying. Now what? Pretend I didn't see what I've seen?
-
We can disagree about the use of equipment, but the fact that the stars are provably not as described by NASA, there is a lot more work to do to get to the bottom of what is going on above us. I don't agree that the star should look like a point, unless I'm going by information provided by people I don't trust and ignoring what I found.
I'd agree that there is a lot more work to do to understand what we see in the night sky. However, this tangent on equipment has nothing to do with people or opinions; it is a simple fact of optics that anyone can see given that they have access to a high-quality telescope that is used and maintained properly.
The question of (1) whether stars are different from what NASA says they are and (2) whether they look like "points" (or have a symmetrical airy disc structure instead of the bloated irregular mass in that video: https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/how-to-star-test-a-telescope/) are in fact two different and independent questions. If the only person you can trust is yourself, as St. Giles said, then you need to get several telescopes, cameras, etc. to demonstrate on your own that those bloated "boiling" irregular masses aren't just due to equipment problems. You need to establish if the camera can really focus on stars, and if so where the exact focus point is. As St. Giles said, you need to demonstrate that those bloated shapes aren't due to other variables such as the camera sensor, ISO values, over-magnification etc. Once again, cameras are really not good by themselves to study the night sky; there's too much electronics and technology in general that affects the images and over-processes them. And the aperture is execrable compared to a telescope. Your best bet is to look at stars with a telescope or photograph stars through the telescope with the camera. If you have an amateur astronomy club near you, see if you can rent/borrow some of their telescopes or go to one of their meetings. Regardless of agreement or non-agreement with their specific cosmology beliefs, that will give you access to better equipment to use to explore this if you want.
The fact that you can replicate the stars as I've seen is maybe a sign you should ditch the preconceived ideas and look at your results independently.
This has nothing to do with preconceived cosmology ideas on my end; I'm open to listening to various interpretations of what stars are, what they are made of, how big they are, how far away etc. However, independent of all of those bloated star videos (as well as mainstream scientists), I have myself seen stars resolve to points of light or organized airy discs in good telescopes. And that is pretty much what anyone else with experience involving telescopes, amateur or professional, will tell you. With regard to my replication of the bloated stars, re-read the text below from my previous post you are referencing:
I've used quite a few digital cameras, binoculars, and telescopes over the years, and could easily replicate the boiling blobs you are seeing. The problem is that once again in order to replicate this, you need to de-focus the image, which defeats the whole purpose of looking at the object in the first place, unless you are testing optical quality.
The only way what you are seeing can be replicated is basically if the instrument is misused; i.e., it is purposely thrown out of focus or "de-focused". Would you call a family portrait picture that is grossly out of focus so everyone looks like blobs of color a good representation of the subject (or an instrument being used properly)? The fact that I can replicate your results by purposefully "misusing" an instrument actually is a warning that the bloated and boiling star images are NOT accurate representations of their true structure. You're basically just looking at the peculiarities of your own optics.
At any rate, good luck with your experiments.
-
It's always possible I don't understand the results, but with others who produce the same results, the onus is on NASA and they aren't ever going to fess up if they're lying. Now what? Pretend I didn't see what I've seen?
Does NASA use p900's? They don't play with toys, well... not when they are doing real scientific research.
No offence. I have a Sony WX-220 I think highly of, and it is perhaps more of a "toy" than your p900. My 220 can do things a huge Canon 5D can't. Everything has a purpose, the p900's is not for astronomical research.
-
Just wondering...do you think man went to the moon?
I don't know. I would not be surprised if they both did, and made fakes of it. I will say that I think a manned mission has a better chance of success than an autonomous one, because the operators/problem solvers are so much closer to the situation at hand, yet they can supposedly easily land robots on mars, but not on the moon, so who knows. It really doesn't matter what I think.
I can think I have more than sufficient evidence to prove something and still be wrong. I hope you remember that that is true for any human being who is not inspired by the Holy Ghost.
-
The only way what you are seeing can be replicated is basically if the instrument is misused; i.e., it is purposely thrown out of focus or "de-focused". Would you call a family portrait picture that is grossly out of focus so everyone looks like blobs of color a good representation of the subject (or an instrument being used properly)? The fact that I can replicate your results by purposefully "misusing" an instrument actually is a warning that the bloated and boiling star images are NOT accurate representations of their true structure. You're basically just looking at the peculiarities of your own optics.
I disagree. It could be the best that camera can do. Over magnification is a real thing, I think it's caused by too shallow of a depth of field in combination with other things, but I'm not sure that is the case.
The P900 has manual focus, so first of all Tradman needs to try adjusting that. It could be that the focus adjustment resolution is not fine enough or is not capable of near infinite focusing distances. In my link on huge super zoom lenses, one of them could only focus as far as 30ish miles. I'm not sure why, but maybe the p900 can only focus as far as the moon or sun at full zoom.
As far as zoom goes, I have often thought that you could plot the focus adjustment of a telescope on a graph (knob turn distance vs optical focus distance) and be able to determine the curve, and use that to determine really how far the moon and sun are based on where the focus knob is adjusted to. Of course either a sun filter will be needed, or an indirect way of viewing it such as projecting the image onto a sheet of paper shaded in a box.
-
I'd agree that there is a lot more work to do to understand what we see in the night sky. However, this tangent on equipment has nothing to do with people or opinions; it is a simple fact of optics that anyone can see given that they have access to a high-quality telescope that is used and maintained properly.
The question of (1) whether stars are different from what NASA says they are and (2) whether they look like "points" (or have a symmetrical airy disc structure instead of the bloated irregular mass in that video: https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/how-to-star-test-a-telescope/) are in fact two different and independent questions. If the only person you can trust is yourself, as St. Giles said, then you need to get several telescopes, cameras, etc. to demonstrate on your own that those bloated "boiling" irregular masses aren't just due to equipment problems. You need to establish if the camera can really focus on stars, and if so where the exact focus point is. As St. Giles said, you need to demonstrate that those bloated shapes aren't due to other variables such as the camera sensor, ISO values, over-magnification etc. Once again, cameras are really not good by themselves to study the night sky; there's too much electronics and technology in general that affects the images and over-processes them. And the aperture is execrable compared to a telescope. Your best bet is to look at stars with a telescope or photograph stars through the telescope with the camera. If you have an amateur astronomy club near you, see if you can rent/borrow some of their telescopes or go to one of their meetings. Regardless of agreement or non-agreement with their specific cosmology beliefs, that will give you access to better equipment to use to explore this if you want.
This has nothing to do with preconceived cosmology ideas on my end; I'm open to listening to various interpretations of what stars are, what they are made of, how big they are, how far away etc. However, independent of all of those bloated star videos (as well as mainstream scientists), I have myself seen stars resolve to points of light or organized airy discs in good telescopes. And that is pretty much what anyone else with experience involving telescopes, amateur or professional, will tell you. With regard to my replication of the bloated stars, re-read the text below from my previous post you are referencing:
The only way what you are seeing can be replicated is basically if the instrument is misused; i.e., it is purposely thrown out of focus or "de-focused". Would you call a family portrait picture that is grossly out of focus so everyone looks like blobs of color a good representation of the subject (or an instrument being used properly)? The fact that I can replicate your results by purposefully "misusing" an instrument actually is a warning that the bloated and boiling star images are NOT accurate representations of their true structure. You're basically just looking at the peculiarities of your own optics.
At any rate, good luck with your experiments.
My camera was not misused. I'm not retarded, I do know how to use it. While taking photos and video you're saying everyone's cameras magically picked up the same things that anyone who isn't NASA got? Sorry, at some point you have to question the narrative and not the whistle blowers. You'd have to prove we all misused our cameras to come up with such an insupportable conclusion, but that would be remiss because there are dozens and dozens of verifiable proofs that NASA is not just misusing, but actually abusing the ability of their instruments to falsify findings, systematically hiding the truth of God's creation with go-pro trickery, cgi, renderings, fake moon landings and green screens to paint false pictures of our world. Yes, we can prove it.
-
Does NASA use p900's? They don't play with toys, well... not when they are doing real scientific research.
No offence. I have a Sony WX-220 I think highly of, and it is perhaps more of a "toy" than your p900. My 220 can do things a huge Canon 5D can't. Everything has a purpose, the p900's is not for astronomical research.
NASA has the goods, just like all government entities do, but they abuse it in order to mislead the public and those of us unafraid to look at the evidence have plenty of proof.
-
What you've been calling "boiling" stars is just how a light in water looks. Just like the Bible describes. What a coincidence.
I saw a better video but this will do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaI26ghSn8g
-
My camera was not misused. I'm not retarded, I do know how to use it. While taking photos and video you're saying everyone's cameras magically picked up the same things that anyone who isn't NASA got? Sorry, at some point you have to question the narrative and not the whistle blowers. You'd have to prove we all misused our cameras to come up with such an insupportable conclusion, but that would be remiss because there are dozens and dozens of verifiable proofs that NASA is not just misusing, but actually abusing the ability of their instruments to falsify findings, systematically hiding the truth of God's creation with go-pro trickery, cgi, renderings, fake moon landings and green screens to paint false pictures of our world. Yes, we can prove it.
There are lots of ways to "misuse" a camera that fall outside knowledge of its user manual. You could know all the functions and controls, but if you use it for an application it was not designed for, it will give you incorrect results. And yes, that could be done consistently, especially if features like autofocus are left on for the cameras.
A question- you mentioned earlier that you saw a fraction of the "boiling" of the stars in your friend's 10" telescope than in your much smaller camera. Once again this is odd, as if the stars really were those irregular boiling shapes, you would actually expect the opposite (more in the big telescope, less in the little camera lens) Why do you think that was the case?
-
There are lots of ways to "misuse" a camera that fall outside knowledge of its user manual. You could know all the functions and controls, but if you use it for an application it was not designed for, it will give you incorrect results. And yes, that could be done consistently, especially if features like autofocus are left on for the cameras.
A question- you mentioned earlier that you saw a fraction of the "boiling" of the stars in your friend's 10" telescope than in your much smaller camera. Once again this is odd, as if the stars really were those irregular boiling shapes, you would actually expect the opposite (more in the big telescope, less in the little camera lens) Why do you think that was the case?
There is no doubt my camera worked beautifully for the job it did, it's an incredible piece of equipment. However, to get the camera steady with the zoom fully extended takes diligence and practice. The camera is a lot smaller than the telescope which was firmly planted and capable of showing a wider swathe of sky with more stars. Keeping the camera on one star for very long is difficult because the lens is so much smaller and the stars move pretty fast, in seconds actually. The camera constantly needed to be adjusted because when viewing a single star, being closer up and more detailed, they move along pretty quickly and it would move out of view. There is equipment for following stars for longer periods of time, but I don't have it. The telescope also functions differently internally, it's type and size of mirrors, the way it processes light, etc. and while it had a wider field of view, and believe me, the results were amazing, the closeups were not as detailed. The telescope was nice because we weren't forced to continually reset it in order to chase a star, but the detail with the camera capturing individual stars so obviously clearer and better, it was a treat. They each had their own pluses and minuses. Neither one was purposely or mistakenly misused. Having gotten the same results as so many others have obtained with their P900, and having done it many times, I'm confident in the results. I've seen the videos that claim the stars are out of focus unless you set the camera a certain way, but I've tried what they recommend along with other settings, and it's just not true.
-
Instead of getting bogged down in the details, step back and look at the big picture. Look into the occult/ Fremmasonic roots of NASA.
Look into the faked Big Blue Marble.
Look into the astronauts who were murdered.
Look into Stanley Kubrik.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkBlFTcBpFQ&list=PLUrnnkvyMBf-2pdV3J5wNUDh7NFvLfJ2h&index=5
There are several things that this model of flat earth does not address and that anyone that has had the opportunity of living at different latitudes has experienced. One of them is the path the sun follows at sunrise, noon and sunset on a given day. For people who live along the equator (e.g., in Quito) the sun follows a vertical path, up from sunrise to noon and down to sunset, and they always get 12 hrs. of daylight (+/- few minutes) every day of the year regardless of the season. North of the equator, during spring and summer, if you stand outside your house facing exactly to the East, the sun appears to rise from your left side, at noon it will be slightly on your right side and back to your left at sunset (not a vertical but inclined path). The farther north you go, the sun rises more to your left and experience longer daylight time (e.g., Houston vs Anchorage). However, regions north of the Tropic of Cancer never experience the sun at their zenith (vertically on top of your head). In cities north of Anchorage, like Fairbanks, on June 21st the sun follows a path that circles the horizon.
At the Equinoxes, anyone in the world experiences the sun rising exactly at the East and setting at the West, but only cities along the Equator experience the sun at their zenith. Autumm and winter, again, north of the Equator, the sun always rises on your right side if you face exactly to the East. The northern you go, the more to the right side.
If you have never experienced this, it will take some time to digest. This phenomenon can only be explained if the surface of the earth is curved at least from a North-Southwise direction. The sketches I attached can give you a better idea. You can compare observations between cities in the US like Seattle, Chicago or New York vs LA, Houston or Miami if you have family or friends. Very few people in past centuries had the chance to travel as much as we can these days and experience these phenomeonos themselves.
-
There are several things that this model of flat earth does not address and that anyone that has had the opportunity of living at different latitudes has experienced. One of them is the path the sun follows at sunrise, noon and sunset on a given day. For people who live along the equator (e.g., in Quito) the sun follows a vertical path, up from sunrise to noon and down to sunset, and they always get 12 hrs. of daylight (+/- few minutes) every day of the year regardless of the season. North of the equator, during spring and summer, if you stand outside your house facing exactly to the East, the sun appears to rise from your left side, at noon it will be slightly on your right side and back to your left at sunset (not a vertical but inclined path). The farther north you go, the sun rises more to your left and experience longer daylight time (e.g., Houston vs Anchorage). However, regions north of the Tropic of Cancer never experience the sun at their zenith (vertically on top of your head). In cities north of Anchorage, like Fairbanks, on June 21st the sun follows a path that circles the horizon.
At the Equinoxes, anyone in the world experiences the sun rising exactly at the East and setting at the West, but only cities along the Equator experience the sun at their zenith. Autumm and winter, again, north of the Equator, the sun always rises on your right side if you face exactly to the East. The northern you go, the more to the right side.
If you have never experienced this, it will take some time to digest. This phenomenon can only be explained if the surface of the earth is curved at least from a North-Southwise direction. The sketches I attached can give you a better idea. You can compare observations between cities in the US like Seattle, Chicago or New York vs LA, Houston or Miami if you have family or friends. Very few people in past centuries had the chance to travel as much as we can these days and experience these phenomeonos themselves.
The sun's behavior could be explained with Enoch's version of the 6 entries and exits in the firmament which does not depend much on the shape of the earth. Also, curvature commensurate with a 24,901 circuмference ball has never been proven or demonstrated. NASA et. al. will point to boats, cgi graphics and rockets with go pros but never deal with the measurement of the land because the land doesn't curve one mile for the first 90 miles distance, the result needed for earth to be a globe. Salt flats perfectly level for 5,000 square miles kind of put a hole in the curvature fairy tale as well.
-
I don’t know if this has been addressed before, but can a FE adherent explain why when you climb a mountain the temperature drops drastically? It would stand to reason that if the Sun is much closer to the Earth in the FE theory as opposed to the GE theory, the temperature would rise as you got closer to the Sun.
-
I don’t know if this has been addressed before, but can a FE adherent explain why when you climb a mountain the temperature drops drastically? It would stand to reason that if the Sun is much closer to the Earth in the FE theory as opposed to the GE theory, the temperature would rise as you got closer to the Sun.
Uhm, the same reason the temperature would drop on a globe, the decrease in air pressure, and less sun reflecting off the surface, etc. What, do you imagine that the FE models holds that the sun is 20,000 feet above the surface? Relatively small increase in proximity to the sun doesn't suffice to cancel out the cooling due to lower air pressure and other factors. When the atmosphere is thinner, there's less matter for the sun's raise to excite and therefore convert into heat (heat is caused by vibrating molecules).
See, the Glober attitude is that they've already decided that the earth is a globe/ball and so they just keep slinging enough manure at the wall with the hope that some of it will stick.
-
I don’t know if this has been addressed before, but can a FE adherent explain why when you climb a mountain the temperature drops drastically? It would stand to reason that if the Sun is much closer to the Earth in the FE theory as opposed to the GE theory, the temperature would rise as you got closer to the Sun.
The air is much thinner as you ascend. So much so, not only is it colder, breathing is difficult to impossible at great heights even on mountains which remain in our atmosphere. Airplane travel is easier and faster due to less resistance just above the mountains. What's funny is that globe proponents pretend that the vacuum of space sits just outside the pressurized area of oxygen. Vacuums don't exist without containment or we'd all be sucked up into the vacuum. Pretending to send rockets up into "space" is joke because engines need oxygen for combustion and a few hundred miles up, there is no oxygen.
-
Uhm, the same reason the temperature would drop on a globe, the decrease in air pressure, and less sun reflecting off the surface, etc. What, do you imagine that the FE models holds that the sun is 20,000 feet above the surface? Relatively small increase in proximity to the sun doesn't suffice to cancel out the cooling due to lower air pressure and other factors. When the atmosphere is thinner, there's less matter for the sun's raise to excite and therefore convert into heat (heat is caused by vibrating molecules).
See, the Glober attitude is that they've already decided that the earth is a globe/ball and so they just keep slinging enough manure at the wall with the hope that some of it will stick.
But if you assume we are in a “snow globe” FE, warm air rises and thus it should be warmer at the top of the dome, No? Also, what is the assumption you make for the distance the surface of the Earth is to the Sun?
-
Uhm, the same reason the temperature would drop on a globe, the decrease in air pressure, and less sun reflecting off the surface, etc. What, do you imagine that the FE models holds that the sun is 20,000 feet above the surface? Relatively small increase in proximity to the sun doesn't suffice to cancel out the cooling due to lower air pressure and other factors. When the atmosphere is thinner, there's less matter for the sun's raise to excite and therefore convert into heat (heat is caused by vibrating molecules).
See, the Glober attitude is that they've already decided that the earth is a globe/ball and so they just keep slinging enough manure at the wall with the hope that some of it will stick.
Don't you FE-ers have a veideo showing a plane flying above clouds with the sun below proving flat earth, when it really proves a globe earth?
You often come across like you have already decided the earth is flat and keep slinging manure hoping some of it sticks. Seems to me like the FE-ers often accuse GE-ers of the things they themselves do, but hope that making the accusation first will somehow prove them right.
-
The air is much thinner as you ascend. So much so, not only is it colder, breathing is difficult to impossible at great heights even on mountains which remain in our atmosphere. Airplane travel is easier and faster due to less resistance just above the mountains. What's funny is that globe proponents pretend that the vacuum of space sits just outside the pressurized area of oxygen. Vacuums don't exist without containment or we'd all be sucked up into the vacuum. Pretending to send rockets up into "space" is joke because engines need oxygen for combustion and a few hundred miles up, there is no oxygen.
Shows how much you know. Rockets are not like jet engines that use the oxygen in the air, they carry a concentrated supply in either a compressed tank, or a solid form.
-
Shows how much you know. Rockets are not like jet engines that use the oxygen in the air, they carry a concentrated supply in either a compressed tank, or a solid form.
LOL. It doesn't matter what form it comes in, it has to combust to move the rocket and combustion demands lots of oxygen, not available in the upper atmosphere let alone "space".
-
Don't you FE-ers have a veideo showing a plane flying above clouds with the sun below proving flat earth, when it really proves a globe earth?
You often come across like you have already decided the earth is flat and keep slinging manure hoping some of it sticks. Seems to me like the FE-ers often accuse GE-ers of the things they themselves do, but hope that making the accusation first will somehow prove them right.
What are you babbling about "you FE-ers"? I have no such video. Most FEs surmise that the sun is about 3,000 miles above the surface of the earth.
-
But if you assume we are in a “snow globe” FE, warm air rises and thus it should be warmer at the top of the dome, No? Also, what is the assumption you make for the distance the surface of the Earth is to the Sun?
Warm air rises on Globe earth also, generally speaking, so what's the point? Reason warm air rises is because of its lower density, due to the particles being more dispersed.
-
Still waiting for an explanation for how the Alps can be seen from 700 miles away (in photos taken by someone who isn't a Flat Earther) when they should be hidden by 45 miles of curvature, or a lighthouse that's 150 feet above sea level can be seen from 250 miles away. Or how two-way laser experiments that debunk "refraction" can be explained. Or the hundreds of similar experiments. Or a response to Dr. John D's "Black Swan" video. Or why amateur balloons not equipped with GoPro lenses at 120,000 feet show no drop in the horizon line (impossible on a globe).
(https://images6.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED11/50e4829fdab54.jpeg)
-
The sun's behavior could be explained with Enoch's version of the 6 entries and exits in the firmament which does not depend much on the shape of the earth. Also, curvature commensurate with a 24,901 circuмference ball has never been proven or demonstrated. NASA et. al. will point to boats, cgi graphics and rockets with go pros but never deal with the measurement of the land because the land doesn't curve one mile for the first 90 miles distance, the result needed for earth to be a globe. Salt flats perfectly level for 5,000 square miles kind of put a hole in the curvature fairy tale as well.
The narrative in book of Enoch does not apply if you are at the equator. Daylight is practically the same year round. The sun"s "movement" to the left and right at sunrise, noon and sunset is minimal, and it increases gradually as you travel north or south the equator.
-
The narrative in book of Enoch does not apply if you are at the equator. Daylight is practically the same year round. The sun"s "movement" to the left and right at sunrise, noon and sunset is minimal, and it increases gradually as you travel north or south the equator.
Ok, you'll need to prove the explanation in Enoch does not apply if you're at the equator. You have to fully understand what he's saying and what he proposes, in order to deny what he's saying is true.
-
LOL. It doesn't matter what form it comes in, it has to combust to move the rocket and combustion demands lots of oxygen, not available in the upper atmosphere let alone "space".
So, what's your point? Rockets only need most of their fuel before reaching space to accelerate and overcome air resistance. Once in space, not as much fuel is needed because there is practically nothing to slow them down. When talking about rocket fuel oxygen is considered part of it, unlike in airplanes where only the non oxygen component is called fuel.
-
So, what's your point? Rockets only need most of their fuel before reaching space to accelerate and overcome air resistance.
Not exactly. It's less about air resistance than in achieving "escape velocity" from the earth's "gravity" (since you believe in gravity). Interestingly, Werner von Braun felt early on that achieving escape velocity was not possible, saying something along the lines of needing a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to make it happen, explaining the paradox in the fact that the more fuel you add to the rocket (increasing it in size) the more thrust is needed to achieve escape velocity.
-
So, what's your point? Rockets only need most of their fuel before reaching space to accelerate and overcome air resistance. Once in space, not as much fuel is needed because there is practically nothing to slow them down. When talking about rocket fuel oxygen is considered part of it, unlike in airplanes where only the non oxygen component is called fuel.
What, and the rocket doesn't need to burn fuel to maneuver? Or burn fuel to return? How does a rocket exit the earth that is supposedly travelling at 67,000 mph one direction, some 500,000 another direction and ever hope to catch back up?
-
Not exactly. It's less about air resistance than in achieving "escape velocity" from the earth's "gravity" (since you believe in gravity). Interestingly, Werner von Braun felt early on that achieving escape velocity was not possible, saying something along the lines of needing a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to make it happen, explaining the paradox in the fact that the more fuel you add to the rocket (increasing it in size) the more thrust is needed to achieve escape velocity.
I said "to accelerate and overcome air resistance", so I had acceleration (obviously to however fast needed including escape velocity) covered.
What, and the rocket doesn't need to burn fuel to maneuver? Or burn fuel to return? How does a rocket exit the earth that is supposedly travelling at 67,000 mph one direction, some 500,000 another direction and ever hope to catch back up?
They carry the oxygen in a tank with them, and yes the maneuvering fuel is very limited. Ion thrusters can also be used. The rocket doesn't step off a speeding bullet (earth) into still air (space), It is already going the same speed as earth (if earth really is flying around the sun and galaxy) apart from the speed reached to leave earth. They carefully plan these flights. Most only send something into orbit, so maneuvering is minimal. Shooting for a lap around the moon can use the moon's gravity to help overcome earth's gravity, and a "slingshot" effect around the moon to get back if they pass the moon on the correct side. This isn't like in most sci-fi shows where if the rocket's engines turn off the thing comes to a stop in the middle of space. It's called space for a reason, there's no air, so nothing to slow it down other than some source of gravity, which could speed it up with no fuel burned depending on which direction it is flying. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this stuff. I'm not saying I'm proving that rockets flying in empty space is real, I just saying that it is quite possible. The impossibility of space flight is no proof for a water filled firmament because space flight is conceptually very possible.
-
I said "to accelerate and overcome air resistance", so I had acceleration (obviously to however fast needed including escape velocity) covered.
They carry the oxygen in a tank with them, and yes the maneuvering fuel is very limited. Ion thrusters can also be used. The rocket doesn't step off a speeding bullet (earth) into still air (space), It is already going the same speed as earth (if earth really is flying around the sun and galaxy) apart from the speed reached to leave earth. They carefully plan these flights. Most only send something into orbit, so maneuvering is minimal. Shooting for a lap around the moon can use the moon's gravity to help overcome earth's gravity, and a "slingshot" effect around the moon to get back if they pass the moon on the correct side. This isn't like in most sci-fi shows where if the rocket's engines turn off the thing comes to a stop in the middle of space. It's called space for a reason, there's no air, so nothing to slow it down other than some source of gravity, which could speed it up with no fuel burned depending on which direction it is flying. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this stuff. I'm not saying I'm proving that rockets flying in empty space is real, I just saying that it is quite possible. The impossibility of space flight is no proof for a water filled firmament because space flight is conceptually very possible.
No oxygen or fuel needed for maneuvers in space? When...before or after the 60's moon landing? Spaceships cling to the earth via gravity, then pop over to the moon without drifting or getting off track? The spaceship magically maintains position while everything is blasting through "space" at 500,000 mph? Travels a distance 500,000 miles with no need for fuel? Clings to the earth which is going it's own direction at 67,000 mph? Then hops on over to the moon's gravity with a sling shot round-about? No need to dodge space debris? Little fuel to avoid other bodies like meteors? No need for combustion the entire time? Oh boy. Santa has a better story than that.
Sorry to burst the space bubble, it's the lying idiots working for the government providing creative writers' fables to spin more and more sophisticated yarns, so they can laugh like hyenas at people that believe all the made up nonsense about space travel.
The firmament is not filled with water. Water is above the firmament. Any vehicle that flies stays under that dome, in the atmosphere, and uses fuel and oxygen.
-
Wondering how a spaceship communicates 238,000 miles through space, from earth to moon and back, when sound doesn't travel through a vacuum. :popcorn:
The radio waves with the longest length that NASA claims can in no way supply or substitute because they travel in a direct line only.
Microwaves travel by line-of-sight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation); unlike lower frequency radio waves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_waves), they do not diffract around hills, follow the earth's surface as ground waves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_wave), or reflect from the ionosphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere), so terrestrial microwave communication links are limited by the visual horizon to about 40 miles (64 km).
-
Wondering how a spaceship communicates 238,000 miles through space, from earth to moon and back, when sound doesn't travel through a vacuum. :popcorn:
The radio waves with the longest length that NASA claims can in no way supply or substitute because they travel in a direct line only.
Microwaves travel by line-of-sight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation); unlike lower frequency radio waves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_waves), they do not diffract around hills, follow the earth's surface as ground waves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_wave), or reflect from the ionosphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere), so terrestrial microwave communication links are limited by the visual horizon to about 40 miles (64 km).
I have a serious problem with the allegation that we have the Webb telescope a million miles away broadcasting high definition images. Everyone knows that the more concentrated the signal, the shorter the range. Also, to get decent bandwidth, you really have to target the signal. How do you do that when Webb is speeding through space at high speed, the earth is moving around the sun at 65,000 MPH and rotating at upwards of 1000MPH? At a million miles away the earth looks pretty small, and a satellite receiver (I don't care if it's the size of a football field) would be so tiny as to be undetectable even if Webb turned its optics towards it. Finally, the POWER required to transmit a signal that far would not be possible on a satellite. If they had the technology now to broadcast signals this far, they wouldn't need to put 5G transmitters every couple blocks. That also speaks to the fact that the more concentrated and "high-bandwidth" a signal has to be, the shorter the range. With 4G, you could put up towers every mile or so and you'd be fine. With 5G, you need a transmitter every few blocks to make it work.
Speaking of line-of-sight microwaves, the world record high-bandwidth microwave transmission goes across the Mediterranean Sea, I think nearly 300 miles. Microwave must be line of sight, but over 300 miles, there would be over a mile or two of globe curvature putting the receiver out of sight. Specs from the company indicated that the receiver tower is about 150 feet high.
-
I have a serious problem with the allegation that we have the Webb telescope a million miles away broadcasting high definition images. Everyone knows that the more concentrated the signal, the shorter the range. Also, to get decent bandwidth, you really have to target the signal. How do you do that when Webb is speeding through space at high speed, the earth is moving around the sun at 65,000 MPH and rotating at upwards of 1000MPH? At a million miles away the earth looks pretty small, and a satellite receiver (I don't care if it's the size of a football field) would be so tiny as to be undetectable even if Webb turned its optics towards it. Finally, the POWER required to transmit a signal that far would not be possible on a satellite. If they had the technology now to broadcast signals this far, they wouldn't need to put 5G transmitters every couple blocks. That also speaks to the fact that the more concentrated and "high-bandwidth" a signal has to be, the shorter the range. With 4G, you could put up towers every mile or so and you'd be fine. With 5G, you need a transmitter every few blocks to make it work.
Speaking of line-of-sight microwaves, the world record high-bandwidth microwave transmission goes across the Mediterranean Sea, I think nearly 300 miles. Microwave must be line of sight, but over 300 miles, there would be over a mile or two of globe curvature putting the receiver out of sight. Specs from the company indicated that the receiver tower is about 150 feet high.
Technology outdoes itself when you get high enough.
-
How long would it take to get a craft to travel 34,000,000 miles to Mars? Well, the internet tells us, at an average speed of around 28,000mph, it takes 332 days. OK, fall off a bus doing 50mph and you leave it at 50mph, yes? But what about a rocket leaving the Earth that is supposedly moving at 67,000mph. If we add the generated engine powered 28,000mph used to get the rocket out of the Earth’s atmosphere, shouldn’t the rocket head off to Mars at around 95,000mph getting there in one third the time it takes according to NASA? We will leave them to answer that question.