Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: DigitalLogos on February 09, 2023, 03:04:48 PM
-
A new one uploaded to Taboo Conspiracy where competitive sailor Hervé Riboni talks about his own personal experience and observations regarding the disparity in the time zones on the purported globe and how they better fit a flat earth model.
https://youtu.be/lMhheDWThxE
-
Riboni makes a compelling case. In an earlier video I saw from him, it was not so much the Timezones, but the "magnetic declination", this construct that's been made up where, depending on where you're at on "the globe", there's actually an adjustment you have to make from your actual compass readings to allegedly stay going in the right direction based on your compass reading ... and these declinations just so happen to reflect what the readings would be if you were on a flat disc model of the earth.
So I'm looking forward to this one.
-
The image in that video shows how the actual boundaries of time zones, as they are drawn by human beings, curve somewhat around various archipelagoes in the Pacific Ocean. This is not an astronomical idea, but a political one, meaning that the people who live on those archipelagoes wanted all the islands in their group to be in the same time zone for convenience's sake, which is why the boundaries of the time zones curve around them.
Is that all the video is about?
-
The other videos referenced by this one
https://youtu.be/YvZ3tMqyjHo
https://youtu.be/QSporLH2nIw
-
The image in that video shows how the actual boundaries of time zones, as they are drawn by human beings, curve somewhat around various archipelagoes in the Pacific Ocean. This is not an astronomical idea, but a political one, meaning that the people who live on those archipelagoes wanted all the islands in their group to be in the same time zone for convenience's sake, which is why the boundaries of the time zones curve around them.
Is that all the video is about?
Pretty much, but he makes an interesting observation, one that needs proving. He claims the sun rises and sets faster in the southern hemisphere than in the north. A time lapse of the stars arcing around the south pole would be just as good if not better evidence of a globe.
-
First video...starting at 8.11. You believe this guy?
cz
-
Well… That was interesting.
I have found geocentrism compellingly interesting, but until now flat earth held no interest for me. For some reason, the time zones jarred me.
It was also revealing that (((they))) forced a "fact check" about this "archaic and disproven" model. As poker players say, "That's a 'tell.'"
So, to round out (pun intended) the cosmological model:
- What is on "the other side" of the flat earth?
- Why don't explorers fall off the edge?
- Where is Hell?
-
The image in that video shows how the actual boundaries of time zones, as they are drawn by human beings, curve somewhat around various archipelagoes in the Pacific Ocean. This is not an astronomical idea, but a political one, meaning that the people who live on those archipelagoes wanted all the islands in their group to be in the same time zone for convenience's sake, which is why the boundaries of the time zones curve around them.
Is that all the video is about?
That doesn't come close to explaining it. Many (in fact most) of the timezone anomalies are out in sparsely populated areas, or in the middle of the ocean, so quite the opposite. Also, if evenly divided, one would expect 24 timezones in both "hemispheres," but you get 19 in the northern and 32 in the southern ... which makes sense on the FE model, as the southern hemisphere has more area to cover. In addition, Riboni has other videos about how the so-called magnetic "declination" corresponds precisely to the adjustments that would need to be made for the FE model. Riboni knows what he's talking about, having "circuмnavigated" the globe, and crossed other oceans many times.
-
Pretty much ...
No, not at all. As I said before, many of the timezone "adjustments" are in sparsely-inhabited or uninhabited (ocean) areas.
-
Pretty much, but he makes an interesting observation, one that needs proving. He claims the sun rises and sets faster in the southern hemisphere than in the north. A time lapse of the stars arcing around the south pole would be just as good if not better evidence of a globe.
I've seen this asserted before. While he has not "proven" it, he circuмnavigated the earth down at 50 latitude south, and has also crossed oceans in the northern hemisphere, so was in the perfect position to observe.
-
It was also revealing that (((they))) forced a "fact check" about this "archaic and disproven" model. As poker players say, "That's a 'tell.'"
So, to round out (pun intended) the cosmological model:
- What is on "the other side" of the flat earth?
- Why don't explorers fall off the edge?
- Where is Hell?
To your first point, whether or not one is inclined to accept FE, there's no doubt but that FE has been aggressively censored by Big Tech. As Matthew pointed out, there are no disclaimers about BigFoot videos. There's SOMEthing they're trying to hide that's at least related to the FE issue, perhaps the overwhelming evidence of NASA fraud. When has Big Tech been at the service of humanity, trying to prevent them from being ensnared in lies?
In FE model, whether there's an edge at all is unknown. Firmament would "touch down", as it were around the edges of a circular region of a flat plane. Hell is beneath the earth in the FE model, and you can see this in various diagrams of Hebrew cosmology. This notion of an edge tends to be based on the idea of a flat disc floating through space, but the FE model (the most prevalent one anyway) doesn't admit of "space", but corresponds more to the detail about how the world is described in Sacred Scripture (kindof like below). One of the things that won me over to FE was the fact that I find it physically impossible that the atmosphere would remain on the earth adjacent to a nearly-perfect vacuum (of space). Gravity does not come close to explaining this, as it's an extremely weak force. I don't believe in gravity at all, and the cosmology models based on gravity are what Kaku referred to as the greatest mismatch between theory and observation in the history of science, on the order of 1 with dozens of zeros after it (can't recall the number). It's why they had to invent "dark matter", to salvage their cosmology. If someone posited some kind of electromagnetic solution to the problem, that might work, and I personally tend to believe in the "electric universe" model (vs. gravity).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe.svg/1200px-Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe.svg.png)
-
Can some Flat Earther PLEASE post a decent model that comes close to demonstrating and explaining the movements of the Sun, Moon, stars, planets, etc.. Remember, the geocentric and heliocentric globe models both do an admirable job (admittedly not perfect) explaining Heavenly movements. Every single FE model that I’ve seen is embarrassingly silly.
It’s fine to poke holes in the global Earth model, but you’d be foolish to discard both GE models without having a reasonable replacement.
-
Can some Flat Earther PLEASE post a decent model that comes close to demonstrating and explaining the movements of the Sun, Moon, stars, planets, etc.. Remember, the geocentric and heliocentric globe models both do an admirable job (admittedly not perfect) explaining Heavenly movements. Every single FE model that I’ve seen is embarrassingly silly.
It’s fine to poke holes in the global Earth model, but you’d be foolish to discard both GE models without having a reasonable replacement.
.
This. I don't understand why flat earthers don't see the force of this objection. Globe earthers have a working model of their theory. Flat earthers don't.
Not to mention flat earthism requires us to ignore simple and observable laws of physics, such as that objects can't travel through the air without a means of propulsion, and can't turn in mid-flight without either control surfaces or some other means to apply force to change their trajectory. But flat earthism claims the sun does both these things without any means of doing so.
And this guy is talking about there being more time zones in the southern hemisphere than in the northern, but admits that many of the southern hemisphere time zones are only half an hour. Well, if the southern hemisphere is cut into more pieces but smaller ones, then I don't see the problem.
-
To your first point, whether or not one is inclined to accept FE, there's no doubt but that FE has been aggressively censored by Big Tech. As Matthew pointed out, there are no disclaimers about BigFoot videos. There's SOMEthing they're trying to hide that's at least related to the FE issue, perhaps the overwhelming evidence of NASA fraud. When has Big Tech been at the service of humanity, trying to prevent them from being ensnared in lies?
In FE model, whether there's an edge at all is unknown. Firmament would "touch down", as it were around the edges of a circular region of a flat plane. Hell is beneath the earth in the FE model, and you can see this in various diagrams of Hebrew cosmology. This notion of an edge tends to be based on the idea of a flat disc floating through space, but the FE model (the most prevalent one anyway) doesn't admit of "space", but corresponds more to the detail about how the world is described in Sacred Scripture (kindof like below). One of the things that won me over to FE was the fact that I find it physically impossible that the atmosphere would remain on the earth adjacent to a nearly-perfect vacuum (of space). Gravity does not come close to explaining this, as it's an extremely weak force. I don't believe in gravity at all, and the cosmology models based on gravity are what Kaku referred to as the greatest mismatch between theory and observation in the history of science, on the order of 1 with dozens of zeros after it (can't recall the number). It's why they had to invent "dark matter", to salvage their cosmology. If someone posited some kind of electromagnetic solution to the problem, that might work, and I personally tend to believe in the "electric universe" model (vs. gravity).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe.svg/1200px-Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe.svg.png)
The atmosphere and the touch-down points are the weakest parts of this model. Is there a refined current model?
As with the globe model, in this model one is hard pressed to explain the inhomogeneity of atmosphere as altitude increases.
Too, navigators like Riboni have never reported, "Oh, looky here. Firmament."
I do not recall St. Hildegarde addressing the touch-down points.
-
The atmosphere and the touch-down points are the weakest parts of this model. Is there a refined current model?
As with the globe model, in this model one is hard pressed to explain the inhomogeneity of atmosphere as altitude increases.
Too, navigators like Riboni have never reported, "Oh, looky here. Firmament."
I do not recall St. Hildegarde addressing the touch-down points.
Well, the picture wasn't really a model ... just an artistic depiction of Hebrew cosmology. My personal opinion is that there isn't a "touch-down" point but that there's a spherical firmament that goes all the way around. Problem is that no one is permitted to go south of 60 degrees latitude to investigate.
Some Church Fathers believed the world was semi-spherical, which would mean a touchdown point. If spherical, there would be no such point. But, either way, there's no way to get down to Antarctica where whatever it is would be found. It's also possible that there's more land / ocean / something beyond Antarctica and that the intersection between the sphere and the plane of the land surface is much farther away.
Globe model (with a vacuum of space around the atmosphere) can't explain why there's any atmosphere at all. Inhomogeneity can be explained simply by density, with lighter elements rising and heavier ones sinking. Directionality is a separate discussion regarding which there are different theories.
-
One of the maps he showed looked like it had at least 2 waterways to the edge of the flat earth through antarctica, like in the pirates of the carribean movie where they sail through huge ice walls into a different world.
-
Inhomogeneity can be explained simply by density, with lighter elements rising and heavier ones sinking. Directionality is a separate discussion regarding which there are different theories.
.
Like many flat earth arguments, this explanation is merely descriptive, i.e. it gives us the material cause instead of the formal or final cause. It's simply a way of re-stating the question. So, heavier substances sink below lighter substances in any medium; this is an observable fact. Why do they do this? The globe earth model says it is because the earth attracts objects to itself by gravity, and denser objects with more mass are attracted more strongly, since it is the mass or matter itself that is receiving the pull. This causes substances of different densities to separate out, or any fluid to be denser at the bottom than at the top, such as in our atmosphere. But to say that air is thinner at higher elevations simply because of density is not an explanation but merely a repetition of the question. It doesn't explain why differences in density cause this effect. And that's without even getting into the problem you mentioned, of why heavier substances are attracted towards the earth instead of, say, towards the moon or the Dog Star.
I see the same thing with the "law of prospective", in which flat earthers claim there is a law of perspective that makes things disappear from the bottom up. This is how they explain why ships sink below the horizon. They say, "Ships appear to disappear from the bottom up as they sail away due to a 'law of perspective', which states that objects appear to disappear from the bottom up as they recede from the observer." But the assertion is false; as objects go away from the observer, they appear to shrink towards a central point in the middle of them, such that all parts of the object appear to shrink towards the middle at the same rate and at the same time. There is nothing in geometry or physics that would make the bottom of an object appear to shrink faster than the rest of it, much less disappear entirely as ships do.
Lent is approaching; last year we spent all Lent talking about this. I can sense another global(!) war shaping up (pun intended) over the shape of the earth again this Lent! Let's go!
-
Like many flat earth arguments, this explanation is merely descriptive, i.e. it gives us the material cause instead of the formal or final cause. It's simply a way of re-stating the question. So, heavier substances sink below lighter substances in any medium; this is an observable fact. Why do they do this?
You theorize that density is due to gravity. I don't believe gravity exists, but attribute it to electromagnetic charge. There's a video in circulation of an MIT professor who says the same thing, that on earth thing move down because of electric charge and not gravity.
But what causes the directionality is independent of the question and has nothing to do with the question, which I answered adequately. I was asked why there's inhomogeneity in the atmosphere under a firmament, and the answer is due to density, and has absolutely nothing to do with a dispute over what causes density / buoyancy (which is a well known phenomenon accepted by all).
This is yet another misdirection.
-
Can some Flat Earther PLEASE post a decent model that comes close to demonstrating and explaining the movements of the Sun, Moon, stars, planets, etc.. Remember, the geocentric and heliocentric globe models both do an admirable job (admittedly not perfect) explaining Heavenly movements. Every single FE model that I’ve seen is embarrassingly silly.
It’s fine to poke holes in the global Earth model, but you’d be foolish to discard both GE models without having a reasonable replacement.
This is yet another desperate misdirection by the globers form the issue at hand.
Globe model has been falsified simply due to the "see too far" phenomenon. It doesn't really matter whether we have a full model that explains everything. We know that the earth's surface is flat, and you keep throwing misdirections out there. There are many considerations that falsify YOUR model, from seeing too far, to the completely different climates between the north and the south poles, etc. You simply assume that you have a model, i.e. that the globe model is true, when the contrary has been demonstrated.
We don't have a full model, but can prove that the globe model is false. You keep ducking behind this question while failing to address the evidence for a flat earth ... which is incredibly solid.
-
This is yet another desperate misdirection by the globers form the issue at hand.
Globe model has been falsified simply due to the "see too far" phenomenon. It doesn't really matter whether we have a full model that explains everything. We know that the earth's surface is flat, and you keep throwing misdirections out there. There are many considerations that falsify YOUR model, from seeing too far, to the completely different climates between the north and the south poles, etc. You simply assume that you have a model, i.e. that the globe model is true, when the contrary has been demonstrated.
We don't have a full model, but can prove that the globe model is false. You keep ducking behind this question while failing to address the evidence for a flat earth ... which is incredibly solid.
I agree.
It doesn't require a "replacement" to call out BS, to shout "The Emperor has no clothes on!" or expose something clearly false as false.
Sure, I'd love a full explanation of the natural world as well. But over the ages, mankind has understood more or less of various aspects of the natural world. Knowledge is gained and destroyed over the centuries, as history flows. Nothing new there. We are merely in a sort of dark age with regards to cosmology.
Quo Vadis seems to keep coming back to this point -- he keeps saying (in so many words) "Stop cursing the darkness and light a candle already!". He critiques Flat Earth proponents for tearing down without much building up.
Sorry, it's not that simple.
It's much easier to find proofs that something is false, than trying to prove something is true, or creating a whole working model. I can debunk evolution, but it's more difficult to "prove" to an atheist that God exists. Especially when their brain has no philosophical foundation.
I keep using 9/11 as the example. It's clear that 9/11 was a fαℓѕє fℓαg; not what the "official story" claimed at all. But will we EVER know exactly who did what? There are some rumors and clues -- but much of it is necessarily shrouded in mystery. We don't have access to shady dark boardrooms where the men behind the scenes -- the men who control the world -- make their plans and decisions. So it is literally impossible in some cases to come up with the full truth about these events. Does that mean we can't call out their false narratives? We can't point out inconsistencies, poke holes in their false claims, cast doubt on the Official Story? God forbid!
-
You theorize that density is due to gravity. I don't believe gravity exists, but attribute it to electromagnetic charge. There's a video in circulation of an MIT professor who says the same thing, that on earth thing move down because of electric charge and not gravity.
But what causes the directionality is independent of the question and has nothing to do with the question, which I answered adequately. I was asked why there's inhomogeneity in the atmosphere under a firmament, and the answer is due to density, and has absolutely nothing to do with a dispute over what causes density / buoyancy (which is a well known phenomenon accepted by all).
This is yet another misdirection.
Lets see some videos that don't just state the fact, lets see some videos that both try to prove and disprove it. If it is as simple as electricity, then my theory is that gravity should be easy to manipulate with electricity regardless of what an object is made of. Lets see some artificial gravity on a vertical wall, and anti-gravity on the floor, such that a human can walk up a wall without the camera angle being changed. Static charges moving, repelling, and attracting very small light things doesn't count.
-
Let's see ANY experiment demonstrating "gravity" or a pull on small objects by massive objects, on ANY scale.
The only direction things go (independent of any other force) is towards the earth -- end of list.
No matter how much mass they collect, they can't get so much as a grain of dust to divert towards it. With all their most sensitive instruments, you'd think they'd be able to.
-
I saw one example briefly demonstrated in a video with many clips about FE/GE, or some science topic, that showed that mass based gravity works. Equal small and presumably dense masses were attached to the end of a long stick, which was tied in the middle at it's balance point, and suspended by a long thin string; the idea being to maximize torque and minimize rotational resistance around the axis. This suspended stick had like a 100lb dumbbell next to each end, so that if masses attract, the stick will rotate until the ends bump into the dumbbells. I don't have such big dumbbells, but if I had a couple similar blocks of iron or lead, I'd perform this experiment right now.
-
Problem is that no one is permitted to go south of 60 degrees latitude to investigate.…But, either way, there's no way to get down to Antarctica where whatever it is would be found.
Please elaborate on this. Is there really some diktat saying "You may not…"? Are you saying that some uppity dude like Riboni was stopped from going further? …threatened in some way? …would get sunk or shot down as the case may be if he or someone else attempted? If so, who the bloody hell is in charge?
If all this is true, how have I not heard of such a thing?
-
Honest question for FE's:
How is it possible that in June's solstice people in the north coasts of Alaska, Canada, Iceland, Finland and Russia can all see the sun at the same time, circling 360° just above the horizon? Can anyone draw a sketch to explain this phenomenon?
-
Mark, Quo Vadis, and Yeti...
All 3 of you have no problem "going with your gut" and concluding that "V2 popes aren't real popes" even if all the details/explanations aren't worked out (that's the job of theologians of the future).
But yet, when the *same people* (i.e. V2 supporting globalists) push the lie about the "globe earth" you demand detailed explanations. ?? It makes no sense.
Open your eyes...the same satanist globalists who are behind the infiltration in the Church are behind the infiltration in sciences. The main difference being that they infiltrated sciences around the 1600s, which was 400 years earlier than the Church, so that the "science lies" they tell are much more "fine tuned".
But they are still lies told by satanists.
-
It's always funny to me to watch people get so riled up over FE. It's as Pax says, you treat literally everything else about the world with skepticism, unless it touches on scientism, THEN it's like it's more certain than teachings of the Church. :laugh1:
-
It's always funny to me to watch people get so riled up over FE. It's as Pax says, you treat literally everything else about the world with skepticism, unless it touches on scientism, THEN it's like it's more certain than teachings of the Church. :laugh1:
Yes, I've pointed this out before. What's the big deal? Why all the emotion, the hostility, the ridicule? To elicit this kind of response, both of the following must apply --
1) people must be strongly attached to the globe (evidence of the psychological programming)
AND
2) there must be something too it, some decent / solid evidence in its favor
If EITHER of these were not true, there wouldn't be this response. If I started writing that I believed we were controlled by purple aliens from Neptune, people would casually walk by, make the circle gesture by their ear, and keep going, not wasting 5 minutes arguing about it. That's because it's so preposterous (with so little evidence) that it's not believable (missing #2 above). If, on the other hand, it was something nobody really cared about, such as the composition of the planet Neptune, even if you had plenty of evidence, you also wouldn't get people spending much time on it (so missing #1).
-
Please elaborate on this. Is there really some diktat saying "You may not…"? Are you saying that some uppity dude like Riboni was stopped from going further? …threatened in some way? …would get sunk or shot down as the case may be if he or someone else attempted? If so, who the bloody hell is in charge?
If all this is true, how have I not heard of such a thing?
Yes, there's an Antarctic Treaty that has been signed by all the nations of the world since, I think it was, 1959 or thereabouts. That by itself is suspicious. Riboni sailed around 50 degrees south, and these sailing races around the globe never go farther south than about 55.
I've seen some videos, one where a few guys in a mid-sized boat try to go south of 60 to see how far they could get, and they were intercepted and told to turn around by a large warship, and the other where a couple guys in a plane try to fly down there, and they were met with a fighter jet and escorted back to base. Once at the base, the pilot questioned the base commander, asking whether if he had refused to comply, he would have been shot down, and the commander responded in the affirmative. So there goes the motivation of keeping people safe. Also, in 1959, environmentalism wasn't even "a thing," so the modern excuse of it being to protect the environment is utter nonsense. US, Russia, and many others would have been vying to see who could exploit the natural resources (which Admiral Byrd said were plentiful) down there, and not signing a treaty during the Cold War (with every nation in the world) to keep Antarctica off limits.
-
Yes, I've pointed this out before. What's the big deal? Why all the emotion, the hostility, the ridicule? To elicit this kind of response, both of the following must apply --
1) people must be strongly attached to the globe (evidence of the psychological programming)
AND
2) there must be something too it, some decent / solid evidence in its favor
If EITHER of these were not true, there wouldn't be this response. If I started writing that I believed we were controlled by purple aliens from Neptune, people would casually walk by, make the circle gesture by their ear, and keep going, not wasting 5 minutes arguing about it. That's because it's so preposterous (with so little evidence) that it's not believable (missing #2 above). If, on the other hand, it was something nobody really cared about, such as the composition of the planet Neptune, even if you had plenty of evidence, you also wouldn't get people spending much time on it (so missing #1).
I like how some will say you'd have to be stupid or it's an "obvious fact" that the earth is a globe. Yet there are Fathers, like St. John Chrysostom, who believed it was flat. Sacred Scripture provides information to suggest it is flat. Yet because a man-made institution and the very "science" that is aligned with anti-christ says the opposite, it is given the assent of natural faith.
But then we present people who take the empirical approach and have real-world experience circuмnavigating the earth, such as in the OP, or taking measurements and showing it can't be globular, like Dr. John D or JTolan Media, and it's "not enough evidence". No, it just does not fit the cosmology you accept that has been carefully constructed over 4-500 years, (based on PYTHAGORIAN TEACHINGS mind you) :clown:
-
Honest question for FE's:
How is it possible that in June's solstice people in the north coasts of Alaska, Canada, Iceland, Finland and Russia can all see the sun at the same time, circling 360° just above the horizon? Can anyone draw a sketch to explain this phenomenon?
The sun in its circuit would be closest to the north pole, meaning those areas would see the sun in the manner you speak of.
https://youtu.be/jpJoqruHtyk
-
Mark, Quo Vadis, and Yeti...… you demand detailed explanations. ?? …
I have nor "demanded" one damn thing.
I finally have a glimmer of interest in a subject that has you in thrall and you give me a ration. Wouldn't you expect a newbie to have some questions?
-
Yes, there's an Antarctic Treaty that has been signed by all the nations of the world since, I think it was, 1959 or thereabouts. That by itself is suspicious. Riboni sailed around 50 degrees south, and these sailing races around the globe never go farther south than about 55.
I've seen some videos, one where a few guys in a mid-sized boat try to go south of 60 to see how far they could get, and they were intercepted and told to turn around by a large warship, and the other where a couple guys in a plane try to fly down there, and they were met with a fighter jet and escorted back to base. Once at the base, the pilot questioned the base commander, asking whether if he had refused to comply, he would have been shot down, and the commander responded in the affirmative. So there goes the motivation of keeping people safe. Also, in 1959, environmentalism wasn't even "a thing," so the modern excuse of it being to protect the environment is utter nonsense. US, Russia, and many others would have been vying to see who could exploit the natural resources (which Admiral Byrd said were plentiful) down there, and not signing a treaty during the Cold War (with every nation in the world) to keep Antarctica off limits.
WOW! That's really wild.
Funny image comes to mind… the antagonism being directed at Musk for wanting to go to Mars.… his rocket hits the ceiling. [klunk!]
-
Honest question for FE's:
How is it possible that in June's solstice people in the north coasts of Alaska, Canada, Iceland, Finland and Russia can all see the sun at the same time, circling 360° just above the horizon? Can anyone draw a sketch to explain this phenomenon?
On the FE model, the North Pole area is actually a very small region, and there's no issue. Where the question comes in is with the "South Pole". According to the FE hypothesis, Antarctica is actually a ring around the rest of the earth, an ice wall that keeps the oceans contained. If the prevailing FE model is correct, there can't be a 24-hour sun the same way as there would be in the North. Videos that claim to show the 24-hour sun from Antarctica have been proven to be doctored, with either portions of them clipped out or where the identical clouds are seen at the beginning and the end of an alleged circuit while watching the sun.
Bottom line, however, is that one of the world long-distance photographs shows a light-house that's about 150 feet above the ocean from over 200 miles away. These photos were not taken by flat earthers, but by photographers who had no agenda. If you do the math for the "globe", it should have been hidden by many miles of "curvature". So, the only comeback the globe-earthers have is this magical concept of "refraction". But refraction is absolutely impossible over 200+ miles. This would mean that absolutely every portion of the 200 miles would have to have the exact rate of refraction. If any stretches refracted just a bit less, then they would block your view to the ultimate target. If any stretches refracted just a bit more, it would refract everything upward out of view. So you would need a perfectly consistent rate of refraction over 200 miles, which is statistically impossible. Also, Dr. John D has done two-way laser experiments, in public, livestreamed, with observers on site, where if refraction were responsible, due to a constantly increasing density along the path, then on the way back there would be constantly decreasing density, and thus the light would be refracted up even further out of view than it would be without refraction. Refraction is Dead on Arrival as convenient deus ex machina explanation for these phenomena. Not to mention that refraction would cause images to be distorted, blurry, often upside down, etc. If someone were to posit some force that somehow bent light directly around the globe, such as the earth's electromagnetic charge, I would be open to it. But refraction is utter garbage as an "explanation" for the FE phenomenon.
-
… I can sense another global(!) war shaping up (pun intended) over the shape of the earth again this Lent! Let's go!
Hmmmm… I'll have to purge the word "global" from my vocabulary. Discal War 3 has already begun.
-
WOW! That's really wild.
Funny image comes to mind… the antagonism being directed at Musk for wanting to go to Mars.… his rocket hits the ceiling. [klunk!]
Speaking of FakeX, when that Tesla was allegedly in space, there was a momentary glitch in the video which showed that the car was still in the studio on the rack where it was prior to it allegedly being in space. Even Musk made the comment, "It looks so fake, it has to be real. We have better CGI than this."
-
Hmmmm… I'll have to purge the word "global" from my vocabulary. Discal War 3 has already begun.
Yes, the temptation is always there to refer to those who believe earth is a globe as "globalists".
-
Speaking of FakeX, when that Tesla was allegedly in space, there was a momentary glitch in the video which showed that the car was still in the studio on the rack where it was prior to it allegedly being in space. Even Musk made the comment, "It looks so fake, it has to be real. We have better CGI than this."
Context:
-
Context:
Thanks. I'll try to find the video, but at one point it glitched (just for a few frames) where the earth disappeared and you could see some of the same stuff from that picture behind the vehicle.
EDIT: here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWFPibprBaE
-
You theorize that density is due to gravity. I don't believe gravity exists, but attribute it to electromagnetic charge. There's a video in circulation of an MIT professor who says the same thing, that on earth thing move down because of electric charge and not gravity.
But what causes the directionality is independent of the question and has nothing to do with the question, which I answered adequately. I was asked why there's inhomogeneity in the atmosphere under a firmament, and the answer is due to density, and has absolutely nothing to do with a dispute over what causes density / buoyancy (which is a well known phenomenon accepted by all).
This is yet another misdirection.
Atmosphere is a mixture of gases (and water vapor and pollutants), each of which has different properties. I am still at pains*** to explain why there is a gradient of pressure of this [relatively] homogeneous mixture according to altitude.
Whether a global or flat model, it's not like gravity or electrical properties dropped all the Argon at my toes and suspended all the Helium at the peak of Mt. Everest.
***I am also at pains to understand nuclear forces of subatomic particles. Many unanswered questions no matter the model.
-
Yes, the temptation is always there to refer to those who believe earth is a globe as "globalists".
Good one! As with much humor, there is truth. Globalists indeed are the ones who serve Satan's deceptions. Perfect.
-
Atmosphere is a mixture of gases (and water vapor and pollutants), each of which has different properties. I am still at pains*** to explain why there is a gradient of pressure of this [relatively] homogeneous mixture according to altitude.
Whether a global or flat model, it's not like gravity or electrical properties dropped all the Argon at my toes and suspended all the Helium at the peak of Mt. Everest.
***I am also at pains to understand nuclear forces of subatomic particles. Many unanswered questions no matter the model.
I get it. This question isn't unique to FE. Traditional explanation is gravity, but I'm not really buying it. There's certainly density. You can see that just by letting a helium balloon go. But what exactly causes the directionality ... it's not completely certain. I tend to think it has to do with electric charge somehow, but I don't believe in a separate "force" called gravity. But in both cases, you have modern science posturing as if they had certainty about it, when it's just all theory. Gravity simply fails on the cosmological level, assuming their overall cosmology, so they had to invent dark matter to explain away the problem.
Many top physicists have begun to question the existence of gravity, so it's not just "FE kooks". I like the electric universe model myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU
-
Mark, Quo Vadis, and Yeti...
All 3 of you have no problem "going with your gut" and concluding that "V2 popes aren't real popes" even if all the details/explanations aren't worked out (that's the job of theologians of the future).
But yet, when the *same people* (i.e. V2 supporting globalists) push the lie about the "globe earth" you demand detailed explanations. ?? It makes no sense.
Open your eyes...the same satanist globalists who are behind the infiltration in the Church are behind the infiltration in sciences. The main difference being that they infiltrated sciences around the 1600s, which was 400 years earlier than the Church, so that the "science lies" they tell are much more "fine tuned".
But they are still lies told by satanists.
On the pope question, speaking for myself, it has nothing to do with “going with your gut”, it’s simply following the teaching of the vast majority of the best theologians and canonists, using logic, and applying to our situation today.
-
Context:
Come on, people really believed that?
-
I get it. This question isn't unique to FE. Traditional explanation is gravity, but I'm not really buying it. There's certainly density. You can see that just by letting a helium balloon go. But what exactly causes the directionality ... it's not completely certain. I tend to think it has to do with electric charge somehow, but I don't believe in a separate "force" called gravity. But in both cases, you have modern science posturing as if they had certainty about it, when it's just all theory. Gravity simply fails on the cosmological level, assuming their overall cosmology, so they had to invent dark matter to explain away the problem.…
I don't expect a perfectly packaged prosecutorial explanation (as you said, "9/11").
That said, if "density" was the explanation, all the noble gases would be layered, not admixed. I should have said, "Radon at my toes."
-
On the pope question, speaking for myself, it has nothing to do with “going with your gut”, it’s simply following the teaching of the vast majority of the best theologians and canonists, using logic, and applying to our situation today.
Agree 100%. My "guts" are nowhere to be found here on my anti-pope page: http://judaism.is/jorge.html
-
The sun in its circuit would be closest to the north pole, meaning those areas would see the sun in the manner you speak of.
https://youtu.be/jpJoqruHtyk
Thanks for this video. However, I have 3 issues with this sketch. Throughout the year, the sun is never at the zenith of regions north of the tropic of cancer or south of the tropic of capricorn. There is always 12 hrs of daylight in cities along the equator, year round. Daylight in cities south of the equator behaves the opposite as their equivalent in the north. For instance, in the model above, how does it explain 22 hrs of daylight in Ushuaia, Argentina, in December (same latitud as Copenhagen but on the south side)? I'm just trying to understand based on observations. Is there other model that can explain FE considering the 3 issues I mentioned?
-
On the pope question, speaking for myself, it has nothing to do with “going with your gut”, it’s simply following the teaching of the vast majority of the best theologians and canonists, using logic, and applying to our situation today.
The point is, some people incorrectly attack sedevacantism because they find a flaw in the conclusion. They'll ask, "So how do we get another pope, if all the heretics have lost office?" Since this is a unique time in all of Church history, the honest answer is "Not sure. I don't have all the details. I just know that pope x isn't the pope."
Same thing with FE. Logic and some major evidence points out that a globe model doesn't work and a "flat land snow globe model" aligns more with the facts. FE'ers don't have all the details (yet) but that doesn't mean the theory is false.
-
The point is, some people incorrectly attack sedevacantism because they find a flaw in the conclusion. They'll ask, "So how do we get another pope, if all the heretics have lost office?" Since this is a unique time in all of Church history, the honest answer is "Not sure. I don't have all the details. I just know that pope x isn't the pope."
Same thing with FE. Logic and some major evidence points out that a globe model doesn't work and a "flat land snow globe model" aligns more with the facts. FE'ers don't have all the details (yet) but that doesn't mean the theory is false.
I don’t want to derail this thread, but I feel compelled to correct your analogy.
I’ve posted some of the following a few times on this board which explains my thoughts on how we can get another pope:
I believe that we should put all of our trust in God as He will resolve it when it is absolutely the right time, no more no less. With that said, here are a few of the scenarios on how we might obtain a true pope that I have envisioned:
1) There could be valid Roman clergy who have kept the faith through the crisis. They could declare that the see vacant and elect a true pope.
2) There must be some bishops still alive (most likely from the Eastern part of the Church) who still profess the true faith and could/would call a council and declare the see vacant and elect a true pope.
3) There could be some conservative NO "cardinals" who could convert, profess the true faith, declare the see vacant, and then call a conclave to elect a true pope. (acclamation?)
4) I think that it is possible that if Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith. (acclamation?)
5) It’s possible that there could be a living true pope in hiding that we are unaware of.
6) God could miraculously intervene.
-
I believe that we should put all of our trust in God as He will resolve it when it is absolutely the right time, no more no less. With that said, here are a few of the scenarios
Again, you're missing the point. Sedevacantism does not have a clear cut, easy answer the crisis (neither does R&R, nor any other Trad theory). There are many possibilities, none of which are certain or provable. In the same way, FE does not have a clear cut, easy explanation of the cosmos (yet). There are many possibilities, not of which are certain or provable (yet).
-
Again, you're missing the point. Sedevacantism does not have a clear cut, easy answer the crisis (neither does R&R, nor any other Trad theory). There are many possibilities, none of which are certain or provable. In the same way, FE does not have a clear cut, easy explanation of the cosmos (yet). There are many possibilities, not of which are certain or provable (yet).
Pax, you are comparing apples to oranges. Sorry, but it’s a bad analogy.
-
Mark, Quo Vadis, and Yeti...
All 3 of you have no problem "going with your gut" and concluding that "V2 popes aren't real popes" even if all the details/explanations aren't worked out (that's the job of theologians of the future).
But yet, when the *same people* (i.e. V2 supporting globalists) push the lie about the "globe earth" you demand detailed explanations. ?? It makes no sense.
Open your eyes...the same satanist globalists who are behind the infiltration in the Church are behind the infiltration in sciences. The main difference being that they infiltrated sciences around the 1600s, which was 400 years earlier than the Church, so that the "science lies" they tell are much more "fine tuned".
But they are still lies told by satanists.
.
This is a good question. I'll give you two answers. First:
But yet, when the *same people* (i.e. V2 supporting globalists) push the lie about the "globe earth" you demand detailed explanations. ?? It makes no sense.
It's not even remotely accurate to say that the globe earth is a lie pushed by globalists today. The globe earth theory goes back 400 years before Christ, to Aristotle. It was universally accepted in ancient Greece. An ancient Greek mathematician Eratosthenes proved the earth was round, and measured the circuмference of the earth using a stick and some string, and was off by less 10%.
While I do find it a bit curious that big tech is censoring flatters today, I don't think the only explanation is that it's because they're right. They could just as well be wrong about the shape of the earth but right about other things big tech wants to censor. Actually, I believe that's exactly what's going on. A lot of flat earthers attack the fake science of today in other things as well as the shape of the earth, and I think that's why they're de-platformed. They attack things the globalists care about very much, such as the corona, the jabs, climate "change", the moon landings, 9/11/2001, and other things. And they attack the fake scientistic hegemony in toto. That is why they are deplatformed, in my opinion. The reason big foot believers are not deplatformed is because they don't attack science as a whole; the reason flat earthers are deplatformed is because they do. In either case, it is Big Science that Big Tech is protecting, not the particular theory involved.
The other problem with your theory is that you are talking about well over half a millennium of Christian rule, in which the globe earth was unchallenged fact, under Catholic monarchs and holy popes. The entire civilized world, all of Christendom, has accepted the globe earth model for as long as they have even had to think about such things, since the beginning of the Age of Discovery, when they started to map the earth. When explorers started sailing all over the earth after Columbus, and mapping the continents and islands, they mapped them on globes. If this were some evil conspiracy, why didn't the Catholic kings step in and tell their explorers (and Catholic kings paid for these expeditions, just look at Columbus, Cortez, and so on) not to say the earth was a globe? Why did the whole of Christendom get filled with globes with maps of the continents on them, and not one single pope stood up and said, "Hey, what's with these globes of the earth everywhere that contradict Scripture and the Fathers? The earth is flat and the heavens are a dome above us!" I never heard of any pope or Catholic king saying such a thing for over five hundreds years. More than that, I never heard of a single Catholic king so much as using a flat earth model of the globe during that time. No, they all without exception used globes to map the earth until the present time. This means that the globe earth has nothing to do with satanists, globalists, atheists, freemasons or anything similar.
On the contrary, if you look at the history of flat earth theory, you will find that it was actually invented by a group of radical leftists in England in the 19th century, mainly Rowbotham and his buddy Lady Elizabeth Blount (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Elizabeth_Blount), who was a leftist radical. To quote the Flat Earth Society's own page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Lady_Blount), she was
she was also poet, songwriter and wrote pamphlets on a wide variety of subjects. Blount was a progressive thinker and humanitarian. She was a vegetarian and - like Marjory Johnson (https://wiki.tfes.org/Marjory_Johnson) - an anti-vivisectionist, often using the Earth Not A Globe Review to "cover these subjects in flowing prose and verse, alongside references to her work as president of the Society for the Protection of the Dark Races".
There you have most of the leftist agenda in the 19th century -- animal rights, Black Lives Matter, socialism and progressivism. That's where the flat earth idea came from.
-
It's not even remotely accurate to say that the globe earth is a lie pushed by globalists today. The globe earth theory goes back 400 years before Christ, to Aristotle. It was universally accepted in ancient Greece. An ancient Greek mathematician Eratosthenes proved the earth was round, and measured the circuмference of the earth using a stick and some string, and was off by less 10%.
Exactly, the Ancient Greece that was the precursor of our Modernists today. The Ancient Greece who did the following:
1. Promoted "science" as a religion, including "globe earth" and heliocentrism
2. Promoted a pan-religion, similar to a one-world religion.
3. Practiced all manner of paganism, with pedeophilia, slavery, etc
4. Killed Socrates because he spoke in favor the natural law
5. Attacked, corrupted and tried to destroy Old Testament Israel's religion (the true religion at the time)
6. Tried to setup a global govt, only stopped by the Maccabees, who fought to keep the true religion alive.
Freemasonic Modernists today worship the ancient Greeks, because they worship the same master (i.e. the devil). The same errors today were pushed in Greece - science above religion, globalism, moral freedom, etc. The ancient Greeks practiced Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ just as Nimrod did, when he tried to build the Tower of Babel. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is worship of the devil, just like Catholicism is worship of the True God. These 2 camps have been at war with each other since the times of Noah.
The other problem with your theory is that you are talking about well over half a millennium of Christian rule, in which the globe earth was unchallenged fact, under Catholic monarchs and holy popes. The entire civilized world, all of Christendom, has accepted the globe earth model for as long as they have even had to think about such things, since the beginning of the Age of Discovery, when they started to map the earth.
No, there's lot of evidence that "globe earth" in past times did not refer to "ball earth" but the side-view of a flat eart/dome heaven. So when people today see prior Catholics refer to a "globe" they misinterpret what is meant by a globe.
There have been multiple pictures posted on this site of famous paintings from the Middle Ages/Renaissance where Christ is shown holding the world, which is in the shape of a ball, but when you look at the detailed earth, it shows a side view of the flat earth/dome heaven (i.e. the firmament, as exactly described in Genesis).
When explorers started sailing all over the earth after Columbus, and mapping the continents and islands, they mapped them on globes.
No way. You can't sail around the world today using a compass unless you have some "correctional calculations" because a ball-earth's map is off. Many old maps don't exist but those that do show a VERY different mapping of the world than our modern lies.