Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Gray2023 on May 05, 2025, 01:42:14 PM
-
Ok. I have been pondering this Flat Earth question and the one thing that keeps bothering me is the see too far scenario. I think I have come up with a full proof experiment that could prove or disprove the shape of the Earth. I tried looking on the internet for the experiment, but I have not found anything.
Experiment: Look at the moon at moon rise or moon set over a body of water, preferably over an ocean with a telescope. It has to be a perfectly clear night.
Items needed: Moon rise or moon set time tables, a good telescope one that allows you to see the rings of Saturn, and a view across a big body of water.
What you would expect to find:
1) If the earth is flat, you would see that the moon never disappears by the set time.
2) If the earth is round, you will loose visual on the moon by the set time.
Comment if you want. Do the experiment yourself? Find a well done video on the experiment already done.
Think this stupid, then just move on. I at some point, hopefully in the next 10 years, will do this experiment myself.
-
What you would expect to find:
1) If the earth is flat, you would see that the moon never disappears by the set time.
2) If the earth is round, you will loose visual on the moon by the set time.
I don't think that's accurate, as we've just spent a lot of time discussing multiple reasons why something could disappear "over the horizon" at the set time, including distance, atmospheric conditions, etc. What was "set time" determined by and who determined it, i.e. what "authority" determined that time.
I just don't think you'd even get consensus on when conditions were right ot take the proper readings.
If you look at the history of even the 6-mile Rowbotham experiment, they went out there multiple times on a wager, and each time they were thwarted by fog, other effects on visibility, etc. So the one time the glober claimed to have won (there was a monetary wager) because the flag on the boat disappeared, but then there was fog that night, and it went to court and the guy got his money back.
While not "stupid", I think that you'd have to have every potential objection addressed.
So, for instance, we have plenty of stuff out there where things can be seen too far, my favorite being the one lighthouse that reaches only 200 feet above sea level, but was photographed from about 237 miles or so (from memory) away by some professional photographer whose picture was then certified by some agency. So, the reason this is compelling is because it was NOT done by a Flat Earther, AND it was certified by some agency ... so you can't claim it was just faked by an FE with an agenda. Photographer taking it didn't even think to consider the curvature problem.
So you put that out there, and the globers refuse to accept because they say the magic word ... "refraction". Yeah, sure. From 150 miles away, where the degree of refraction would have to be perfectly the same from one yard to the next for 200 miles, otherwise, if you had slightly different rates of refraction at any given stretch along the way, the light from the image would clobber light that came in with different refraction rates, resulting in at best an incredibly blurry image, if it were visible at all ... and this thing was crystal clear, meaning the rate of refraction remained absolutely constant for 200 miles. Ridiculous. But, the point is ... if you do your experiment, depending on which side it favors, there will be some explanation for it, whether legitimate or not, whether it's just saying "refraction" or they say that there was excessive humidity in the air causing the moon to disappear prematurely (let's say if it sets before either model would have it setting under ideal conditions).
Just too much variability, and too many people would dispute it.
I think they do have technology out there, especially the DoD that could effectively do laser-leveling using a combination of GPS and other techniques where refraction cannot happen ... but they likely won't release that. There was the one group in Brazil that constructed an ingenious experiment where they took two skyscrapers that were miles apart and had some sophisticated GPS tech accurate to within a couple centimeters. If the earth were a ball, the tops of the skyscrapers would be farther away from one another than the bottoms, since the buildings would be built perpendiculate to the plane beneath it and would therfore lean away from one another on a ball, whereas on a flat earth, they would roughly be the same distance apart. They said that their equipment reigistered that the respective tops and bottoms of the buildings were exactly the same distance apart plus-or-minus the accuracy of the equipment (which was very high and could not account for explaining away the result). Unfortunately, I have no been able to find any publication with the results, and of course anyone could claim they just made up the results, so we'd have to replicate the experiment. But the point is that I do believe that there's some apparatus, some scientific equipment, out there that can settle the claim. Not sure about this advanced GPS these guys were using (they say they had to borrow it from a university where they had one of about a half dozen in the entire country) ... but I'm sure the military has stuff too.
-
A few problems with this experiment.
1) You're assuming the moon is an object and not a light (as described in Scripture). If it's a light, then you'd not be able to see it "disappear" in the same way as a fixed object.
2) If the moon is a light like Scripture says, then it won't "disappear" (per se), it will just be "outshown" in brightness by the sun. Since the sun moves throughout the year, as does the moon, then even comparing 2 different days would give 2 different results.
-
I don't think that's accurate, as we've just spent a lot of time discussing multiple reasons why something could disappear "over the horizon" at the set time, including distance, atmospheric conditions, etc. What was "set time" determined by and who determined it, i.e. what "authority" determined that time.
I just don't think you'd even get consensus on when conditions were right ot take the proper readings.
If you look at the history of even the 6-mile Rowbotham experiment, they went out there multiple times on a wager, and each time they were thwarted by fog, other effects on visibility, etc. So the one time the glober claimed to have won (there was a monetary wager) because the flag on the boat disappeared, but then there was fog that night, and it went to court and the guy got his money back.
While not "stupid", I think that you'd have to have every potential objection addressed.
So, for instance, we have plenty of stuff out there where things can be seen too far, my favorite being the one lighthouse that reaches only 200 feet above sea level, but was photographed from about 237 miles or so (from memory) away by some professional photographer whose picture was then certified by some agency. So, the reason this is compelling is because it was NOT done by a Flat Earther, AND it was certified by some agency ... so you can't claim it was just faked by an FE with an agenda. Photographer taking it didn't even think to consider the curvature problem.
So you put that out there, and the globers refuse to accept because they say the magic word ... "refraction". Yeah, sure. From 150 miles away, where the degree of refraction would have to be perfectly the same from one yard to the next for 200 miles, otherwise, if you had slightly different rates of refraction at any given stretch along the way, the light from the image would clobber light that came in with different refraction rates, resulting in at best an incredibly blurry image, if it were visible at all ... and this thing was crystal clear, meaning the rate of refraction remained absolutely constant for 200 miles. Ridiculous. But, the point is ... if you do your experiment, depending on which side it favors, there will be some explanation for it, whether legitimate or not, whether it's just saying "refraction" or they say that there was excessive humidity in the air causing the moon to disappear prematurely (let's say if it sets before either model would have it setting under ideal conditions).
Just too much variability, and too many people would dispute it.
I think they do have technology out there, especially the DoD that could effectively do laser-leveling using a combination of GPS and other techniques where refraction cannot happen ... but they likely won't release that. There was the one group in Brazil that constructed an ingenious experiment where they took two skyscrapers that were miles apart and had some sophisticated GPS tech accurate to within a couple centimeters. If the earth were a ball, the tops of the skyscrapers would be farther away from one another than the bottoms, since the buildings would be built perpendiculate to the plane beneath it and would therfore lean away from one another on a ball, whereas on a flat earth, they would roughly be the same distance apart. They said that their equipment reigistered that the respective tops and bottoms of the buildings were exactly the same distance apart plus-or-minus the accuracy of the equipment (which was very high and could not account for explaining away the result). Unfortunately, I have no been able to find any publication with the results, and of course anyone could claim they just made up the results, so we'd have to replicate the experiment. But the point is that I do believe that there's some apparatus, some scientific equipment, out there that can settle the claim. Not sure about this advanced GPS these guys were using (they say they had to borrow it from a university where they had one of about a half dozen in the entire country) ... but I'm sure the military has stuff too.
I think it is not that complicated.
We can see the moon above us. If the moon travels parallel to the earth then it would never disappear we could track it in the sky with a telescope. We might not be able to see it with a naked eye, but we would be able to continue to see it with a telescope. Just like we can see Saturn's rings with a telescope.
I don't think we have to use something that is on the earth to measure this besides a telescope.
The next date that we could do this experiment is on Oct 6 at 847pm in California. Based on this information on this site
https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/usa/los-angeles
The moon will be full and setting over the ocean in California in October after 8 pm. It will be dark so the moon should just continue in its rotation and it would not disappear if the earth was flat. It would disappear if the earth is curved.
-
I think it is not that complicated.
We can see the moon above us. If the moon travels parallel to the earth then it would never disappear we could track it in the sky with a telescope. We might not be able to see it with a naked eye, but we would be able to continue to see it with a telescope. Just like we can see Saturn's rings with a telescope.
I don't think we have to use something that is on the earth to measure this besides a telescope.
The next date that we could do this experiment is on Oct 6 at 847pm in California. Based on this information on this site
https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/usa/los-angeles
The moon will be full and setting over the ocean in California in October after 8 pm. It will be dark so the moon should just continue in its rotation and it would not disappear if the earth was flat. It would disappear if the earth is curved.
You could do it in New York on June 11 at 343am or Aug 9 at 354am at moon rise. As you see the moon rise, then you would look at it with the telescope. There should be a gap between the earth and the moon. If there is the earth is flat. If there isn't the earth is curved.
-
A few problems with this experiment.
1) You're assuming the moon is an object and not a light (as described in Scripture). If it's a light, then you'd not be able to see it "disappear" in the same way as a fixed object.
2) If the moon is a light like Scripture says, then it won't "disappear" (per se), it will just be "outshown" in brightness by the sun. Since the sun moves throughout the year, as does the moon, then even comparing 2 different days would give 2 different results.
I find it strange that you have never seen the unlit part of the moon. I have been fascinated with the night sky my whole life and sometimes you can see the unlit part of the moon and sometimes you can't. I don't completely understand why.
-
A size gauge placed in the telescope where it would be in focus with the moon would help determine whether the moon is shrinking from getting further away, or staying the same size as it sinks below the horizon.
-
A few problems with this experiment.
1) You're assuming the moon is an object and not a light (as described in Scripture). If it's a light, then you'd not be able to see it "disappear" in the same way as a fixed object.
2) If the moon is a light like Scripture says, then it won't "disappear" (per se), it will just be "outshown" in brightness by the sun. Since the sun moves throughout the year, as does the moon, then even comparing 2 different days would give 2 different results.
Dude, this is exactly why I don’t take you flat earth wackos seriously. The retardation is astronomical. (pardon the pun):laugh2:
-
Dude, this is exactly why I don’t take you flat earth wackos seriously. The retardation is astronomical. (pardon the pun):laugh2:
Prove the moon is terra firma then
-
NASA = moon is a rock which emits no light.
Scripture = moon is a light source.
If you’re a real catholic, you have to admit NASA’s story is (at least partially) wrong. Maybe the moon is still a rock which emits light? But it’s not just a rock. NASA is wrong. Admit it.
Some of you argue that the earth is a globe, because Gid created all the other planets as globes, so there “has to be” some symmetry.
Following that logic,
A) since God created both the sun and moon as light sources, there must be some symmetry.
B) the sun isn’t a rock which emits light. It’s a huge ball of fire, basically.
C). Therefore, God wouldn’t have made the moon a rock either. It’s a plasma ball (as some scientists postulate).
Sorry, we didn’t land on the moon. NASA lied and has gotten trillions of $s since the 60s. Accept reality.
-
I wondered about this since I was a kid. It wasn't until I started researching "flat earth" that a light bulb went off.
There is NO WAY the moon is a spherical ball that produces no light.
A sphere sitting on a flat surface only makes contact with ONE POINT of that sphere. Everything else is various distances away from the surface.
The same with light. There is no way the closest POINT of the moon wouldn't be brighter, and everything going away from that point (in all directions) wouldn't be LESS bright. In short, the Moon should always look 3D if it's a 3D sphere. The only way it could be uniformly lit, is if it somehow produced its own light.
Again, this isn't about TRUSTING various characters and personalities such as Eric Dubay, David Weiss, or Austin Witsit. They could end in disgrace tomorrow, yet the things they pointed out, the truths they spread, the memes they created, would still persist. Because the truth has an intrinsic strength. Truth resonates with reality. It rings true. It makes sense.
-
Again, we can't go into space. No one can. You might as well be talking about time travel.
So let's keep it down to earth. DEMONSTRATE FOR ME a 3D ball, with light shining on it, where the sphere looks like a 2D glowing heavenly body. Where the center point (closest to the light source) is INDISTINGUISHABLE in luminosity with the edge of said sphere.
I've lived a long time, and I've never seen such a thing.
And you can't say the moon is over-saturated by light or some such. The Sun isn't *that* close to the moon. And the moon is supposed to be covered in grey dust. You should definitely discern a difference between the closest point (brightest) and the furthest points from the sun (the edges 360 degrees around). In short, it should look 3D.
If the edges of the illuminated full moon are normal bright, then the very center of the moon should be *dazzling* since it reflects the maximum amount of sunlight a globe can reflect.
-
NASA = moon is a rock which emits no light.
Scripture = moon is a light source.
If you’re a real catholic, you have to admit NASA’s story is (at least partially) wrong. Maybe the moon is still a rock which emits light? But it’s not just a rock. NASA is wrong. Admit it.
Some of you argue that the earth is a globe, because Gid created all the other planets as globes, so there “has to be” some symmetry.
Following that logic,
A) since God created both the sun and moon as light sources, there must be some symmetry.
B) the sun isn’t a rock which emits light. It’s a huge ball of fire, basically.
C). Therefore, God wouldn’t have made the moon a rock either. It’s a plasma ball (as some scientists postulate).
Sorry, we didn’t land on the moon. NASA lied and has gotten trillions of $s since the 60s. Accept reality.
You are asking me to deny what my own eyes see. I understand what the bible says, but at dusk when the light of a moon is a little sliver you can see the rest of a round object. How is that possible if the moon is not a hard surface and is just plasma?
-
You are asking me to deny what my own eyes see. I understand what the bible says, but at dusk when the light of a moon is a little sliver you can see the rest of a round object. How is that possible if the moon is not a hard surface and is just plasma?
like this
(https://i.imgur.com/n94M45x.jpeg)
-
like this
(https://i.imgur.com/n94M45x.jpeg)
Funny you should bring that up!
Because I always called this the "3D moon" as opposed to all the other phases where it doesn't look 3D at all.
What's funny is that you usually CANNOT see the unlit portion of the moon -- except for this particular phase.
There's something unique about this particular phase.
It was my favorite phase of the moon, for most of my life, for this reason.
But in conclusion, I must say that the 3D appearance of this particular lunar phase is a mere optical illusion. If the moon were truly 3D, it would *always* look 3D, regardless of how much/how little of it was lit.
Even if NONE of it was lit! You should be able to see the unlit hunk of rock moon globe, at least under certain conditions. But no, it's completely gone during the New Moon phase.
-
You are asking me to deny what my own eyes see. I understand what the bible says, but at dusk when the light of a moon is a little sliver you can see the rest of a round object. How is that possible if the moon is not a hard surface and is just plasma?
1) Do you even know what plasma is? You're assuming it works like a light bulb (i.e. 100% on or 100% off). When you can see the dark shape of the unlit moon, maybe the plasma is only "on" 10%?
2) Plasma is only 1 theory. It could be made of something that is nowhere else seen on earth (i.e. the sun is unlike anything on earth, except a specific type of explosion only duplicated in a laboratory).
3) No one is saying the plasma theory is 100% fact. But we ARE saying the rock theory is 100% false. You have to admit that.
4) Using your eyes (i.e. observation) is only 1 small part of actually "doing science". God did not design the human eyes for long-distance science experiments.
-
Dude, this is exactly why I don’t take you flat earth wackos seriously. The retardation is astronomical. (pardon the pun):laugh2:
This represents the most intellectual comment this poster has made on this subject ... or at least it's at tie. Congratulations. Perhaps next time you could try arguing at at least a 3rd grade level now that you've graduated 2nd. If abject stupidity were a bannable offense on CathInfo, you would have been gone a long time ago.
-
I find it strange that you have never seen the unlit part of the moon. I have been fascinated with the night sky my whole life and sometimes you can see the unlit part of the moon and sometimes you can't. I don't completely understand why.
Yeah, so the problem with the "unlit part of the moon" is that professional astronomers have recorded that you can see stars in the unlit part of the moon ... per various entires in the records of the Royal Astronomical Society, so not just some backyard rednecks not knowing what they were looking at.
-
You are asking me to deny what my own eyes see. I understand what the bible says, but at dusk when the light of a moon is a little sliver you can see the rest of a round object. How is that possible if the moon is not a hard surface and is just plasma?
Yeah, this "my own eyes" stuff is incredibly tiresome. If you can't argue rationally, then please stop wasting our time.
Your brain is imposing things on what your eyes see, very often interpreting what you're looking at by prior conception. There are myriad experiments that prove this, where people are tricked into seeing something based on what their mind is expecting.
Bible also does not say the moon is plasma, so you're conflating a couple things here. That's just speculation based on observation of the phenomena. There's that famous video of the one professors who insisted that it's proven fact that the moon is plasma. Not sure what his evidence was, but the man was evidently qualified in the field.
-
Here are some question I need answered to help me better understand better.
Does the moon travel parallel to the earth?
Is there a thought about how far the moon is from earth? I have seen things that say the sun is approximately 3000 miles high in the sky.
-
Is there a thought about how far the moon is from earth? I have seen things that say the sun is approximately 3000 miles high in the sky.
.
If the moon were only a short distance above the earth, it would extremely easy to calculate its altitude. Two flat earthers who live a known distance apart could calculate the angle the moon is above the horizon at the same time. This would create a triangle in which the three vertices would be the two flat-earthers and the moon. The side along the earth would be a known distance, as I said, the base angles of the triangle would be the two angles each person measured that the moon is above the horizon.
With simple geometry and trigonometry, it would be very easy to calculate the altitude of the moon. If the earth were truly flat, flat earthers would have done this long ago and many times. ::)
-
Yeah, so the problem with the "unlit part of the moon" is that professional astronomers have recorded that you can see stars in the unlit part of the moon ... per various entires in the records of the Royal Astronomical Society, so not just some backyard rednecks not knowing what they were looking at.
Simpleton, why do you need “professional astronomer” recordings when anyone can take a pair of binoculars and clearly see that the moon is a solid object? Actually, you don’t even need binoculars, your eyes will do just fine by themselves. Just because you keep repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. I can’t believe supposedly normal people would even debate this! Rachel Levine is going to use you as an expert witness when he needs someone to testify to his womanhood. :laugh2:
Laddude, you’ve clearly lost all sense of reality! :facepalm:
-
Just because you keep repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.
Oui.
-
Simpleton, why do you need “professional astronomer” recordings when anyone can take a pair of binoculars and clearly see that the moon is a solid object?
:facepalm: Yeah, and if you looked at the ocean from far away, with binoculars, it would look solid too. But we know it's not. "Eyeball science" is 3rd grade level stuff. :facepalm:
-
:facepalm: Yeah, and if you looked at the ocean from far away, with binoculars, it would look solid too. But we know it's not. "Eyeball science" is 3rd grade level stuff. :facepalm:
Maybe I am wrong, but I would assume that plasma would look smooth from a distance just like the ocean, but we can see texture on the moon with a telescope. So I don't think the plasma idea works at all.
The Bible says the moon is a light that rules the night, but the moon isn't only up at night.
Here is another interesting experiment that can be done the next time you are at a campfire. Hold and object in front of you, put it in front of you between you and the fire. You can't see the detail because the light source is behind it, now slowly turn with the object and see how the objects detail changes. That gives a primitive idea of how the phases of the moon work.
-
The moon is a light source. You keep repeating NASA's lie that the moon reflects light, with your campfire analogy. You need to de-program yourself from decades of science lies.
-
The moon is a light source. You keep repeating NASA's lie that the moon reflects light, with your campfire analogy. You need to de-program yourself from decades of science lies.
You say the Bible says that the moon is a light to oversee the night. That is not true either. We can see something that we call the moon in the day as well.
There is a thing in the sky that goes through phases every month. Can we agree on that? Or do you think the light in the sky that goes through phases, is several different things?
If we are having a true discussion then we have to start with what we agree on. No NASA involvement, just simple childlike observation. :cowboy:
-
You say the Bible says that the moon is a light to oversee the night. That is not true either. We can see something that we call the moon in the day as well.
Scripture says the moon is brightest light in the night sky. This is true.
Scripture says that the sun is the brightest light during the day. This is true.
Just because you can see the moon during the day, doesn't mean a) the sun isn't the brightest during the day, and b) doesn't mean the moon isn't the brightest during the night.
Nowhere in scripture does it say the moon won't be seen during the day. It only says the sun will "rule the day" (i.e. be the brightest).
-
The moon is a light source. You keep repeating NASA's lie that the moon reflects light, with your campfire analogy. You need to de-program yourself from decades of science lies.
Perhaps the most convincing debunking of the NASA / establishment lie about the moon comes from an analysis regarding how bright the moon should be given the purported nature of its surface and the inverse square law of brightness. Given that the moon is as bright as it is from earth, if you were on the surface of the moon as the astronots and various probes claim to have been, the light would be so blinding that you couldn't function in that environment ... nor would it be anywhere near as bright as it is if it weere simply reflecting the light of the sun. Someone did the math there, and none of it adds up.
-
Perhaps the most convincing debunking of the NASA / establishment lie about the moon comes from an analysis regarding how bright the moon should be given the purported nature of its surface and the inverse square law of brightness. Given that the moon is as bright as it is from earth, if you were on the surface of the moon as the astronots and various probes claim to have been, the light would be so blinding that you couldn't function in that environment ... nor would it be anywhere near as bright as it is if it weere simply reflecting the light of the sun. Someone did the math there, and none of it adds up.
People do get math wrong. Like how you seem to think the inverse square law always applies, but in reality it becomes almost useless when you get close to a light source. It is recommended in that case to assume the source of light is much further away than it really is because the calculation is for point sources of light, not broad surfaces which may extend out of sight at close distances.
-
Scripture says the moon is brightest light in the night sky. This is true.
Scripture says that the sun is the brightest light during the day. This is true.
Just because you can see the moon during the day, doesn't mean a) the sun isn't the brightest during the day, and b) doesn't mean the moon isn't the brightest during the night.
Nowhere in scripture does it say the moon won't be seen during the day. It only says the sun will "rule the day" (i.e. be the brightest).
Ok. I don't disagree with that. Now if the moon is its own light source, why do you think it goes through different light shapes? Every month in a consistent measureable pattern? And is the only thing in the sky that does this?
-
:laugh1: Gray, if we knew that, then this discussion wouldn’t be necessary.
-
I wondered about this since I was a kid. It wasn't until I started researching "flat earth" that a light bulb went off.
There is NO WAY the moon is a spherical ball that produces no light.
A sphere sitting on a flat surface only makes contact with ONE POINT of that sphere. Everything else is various distances away from the surface.
The same with light. There is no way the closest POINT of the moon wouldn't be brighter, and everything going away from that point (in all directions) wouldn't be LESS bright. In short, the Moon should always look 3D if it's a 3D sphere. The only way it could be uniformly lit, is if it somehow produced its own light.
Again, this isn't about TRUSTING various characters and personalities such as Eric Dubay, David Weiss, or Austin Witsit. They could end in disgrace tomorrow, yet the things they pointed out, the truths they spread, the memes they created, would still persist. Because the truth has an intrinsic strength. Truth resonates with reality. It rings true. It makes sense.
It would be interesting to see these same pictures taken when the background is completely dark. I think it would give a different perspective and a more realistic one at that.
-
It should be extremely easy to calculate the moon's altitude if it really is as close to the earth as flat earthers say. All you need is two people in two different locations that are a known distance apart to simultaneously measure the angle that the moon is above the horizon.
In this diagram, an observer in New York and LA would each measure the angles, which would be theta 1 and theta 2. Using the law of sines, one could calculate the length of the other two sides of the triangle, and then use simple trigonometry to calculate the length of the dotted line, i.e. the actual altitude of the moon.
-
It should be extremely easy to calculate the moon's altitude if it really is as close to the earth as flat earthers say. All you need is two people in two different locations that are a known distance apart to simultaneously measure the angle that the moon is above the horizon.
In this diagram, an observer in New York and LA would each measure the angles, which would be theta 1 and theta 2. Using the law of sines, one could calculate the length of the other two sides of the triangle, and then use simple trigonometry to calculate the length of the dotted line, i.e. the actual altitude of the moon.
Not sure what the results for the moon were, but this was done for the sun, which was calculated with this method (if I recall) to be about 3,200 miles away and roughly 30 miles in diameter. Of course, the measurement is valid based on the assumption of FE, which is precisely what's being disputed.
This is a corollary to the problem with Eratosthenes' "proof". It's only valid based on the assumption of a spherical earth with and a sun that's very far away and very large. If the sun were closer and smaller, you could see the exact same outcome. So it's really not proof of anything but a circular argument, where you assume that which you're allegedly proving.
-
Right now the moon looks like a far away spherical rock lit up by the sun, during the day.
-
Right now the moon looks like a far away spherical rock lit up by the sun, during the day.
Gee, I guess that settles it! Thank you for such a massive, indisputable contribution! :laugh1:
-
The moon is a light source. You keep repeating NASA's lie that the moon reflects light, with your campfire analogy. You need to de-program yourself from decades of science lies.
So find me some science experiment I could do myself that proves the earth is flat. A third grade level experiment would be just great. I could do it together with my third grader. :cowboy:
The Bible discription is the only thing you have to say the moon is it's own light source.
I assume you think people are smart enough to create all the electrical stuff we have, but not smart enough to know how the moon works. People are smart enough to work with DNA, but not space.
This is all very inconsistent and when people ask serious questions, most of you just say "oh you are brainwashed". Then some of you say why would I do all this research and pick a side that is so rejected. 🤔 That argument sounds alot like "why would I choose to be gαy?" Just saying.
If you truly believed you were 100% correct about flat earth, then you would be happy to repeat yourself over and over with real science to prove your point. I assume you would do this while trying to convert someone to Catholicism, no?
The flatness of the earth should be so simple to explain that a child would be able to say, "yeah, what you are saying I see it, too."
If I don't care about a topic, I don't ask questions. I am not some person who is trying to trick someone. If you think that of me, then you need to reread my posts without emotion.
-
Ok, this isn't the moon but I'm wondering if someone with some skills could model the earth to a smaller scale (could be a basketball size), keep it spinning 24/7 for a week at the same rate the earth would be in comparison (earth is at 1000mph, basketball would be at ?). We cover it with 70% water and see what happens to the water after one week of continual motion. My guess is that it would be all over the floor or leveled out in the container placed under the experiment.
(https://i.imgur.com/69RvU2m.png)
-
So find me some science experiment I could do myself that proves the earth is flat. A third grade level experiment would be just great. I could do it together with my third grader. :cowboy:
For a flat earth experiment do a laser line of sight test over a large body of water ie
https://youtu.be/ZsnmX0XRNTk
For the distance if the moon from the Earth use the inverse square law for luminosity of the moon 1 metre from the surface example:
https://odysee.com/@GLOBEBUSTERS:c/oh-my-stars-it-s-impossible-by-bob:0?t=2421
-
Ok, this isn't the moon but I'm wondering if someone with some skills could model the earth to a smaller scale (could be a basketball size), keep it spinning 24/7 for a week at the same rate the earth would be in comparison (earth is at 1000mph, basketball would be at ?). We cover it with 70% water and see what happens to the water after one week of continual motion. My guess is that it would be all over the floor or leveled out in the container placed under the experiment.
(https://i.imgur.com/69RvU2m.png)
Why do oceans have chages in tides? But rivers, lakes, and glasses of water do not?
-
The Bible discription is the only thing you have to say the moon is its own light source.
Ok, so you question Scripture.
-
Why do oceans have chages in tides?
Again, I am embarrassed for you and I pity your husband. :fryingpan:
-
On a flat earth, why do oceans have tides?
-
That's a good question and I have no idea but for an actual experiment, who will replicate the 24/7 spinning ball to gauge how much water is left on it after a week or a year?
-
On a flat earth, why do oceans have tides?
On globe earth, why does whatever causes the tides have zero influence upon much smaller bodies of water?
If the pull of the moon (as globe-tards believe) can influence the massive oceans so constantly and profoundly, how does it pass over lakes innumerable and exert absolutely no influence at all, not even a ripple?
-
On globe earth, why does whatever causes the tides have zero influence upon much smaller bodies of water?
If the pull of the moon (as globe-tards believe) can influence the massive oceans so constantly and profoundly, how does it pass over lakes innumerable and exert absolutely no influence at all, not even a ripple?
Ok less start at the beginning. Do flat earthers and glob-tards agree that there are ocean tides, but not river, lake or smaller body of water tides? Glob-tards say that these tides happen because of the pull of the moon and some effect of the sun? What would flat earthers say?
-
On globe earth, why does whatever causes the tides have zero influence upon much smaller bodies of water?
As someone who's sandcastles have been submerged, I can confirm that lakes of all sizes have tides.
-
That's a good question and I have no idea but for an actual experiment, who will replicate the 24/7 spinning ball to gauge how much water is left on it after a week or a year?
Any such ball would not have the mass to keep water under its gravitational influence.
-
Gee, I guess that settles it! Thank you for such a massive, indisputable contribution! :laugh1:
My intent was for others to go take a look outside to see for themselves instead of just assuming what videos made by flat earthers say.
Ok, this isn't the moon but I'm wondering if someone with some skills could model the earth to a smaller scale (could be a basketball size), keep it spinning 24/7 for a week at the same rate the earth would be in comparison (earth is at 1000mph, basketball would be at ?). We cover it with 70% water and see what happens to the water after one week of continual motion. My guess is that it would be all over the floor or leveled out in the container placed under the experiment.
(https://i.imgur.com/69RvU2m.png)
The water and earth's gravity would also need to be scaled down, and the experiment would need to be isolated from earth's gravity. It would be easy enough to make a globe model spin at a scaled down "1000mph" , which would simply look like 1 rotation (360 degrees) per 24hrs. Not even the dust would get flung off it at that speed.
-
My intent was for others to go take a look outside to see for themselves instead of just assuming what videos made by flat earthers say.
The water and earth's gravity would also need to be scaled down, and the experiment would need to be isolated from earth's gravity. It would be easy enough to make a globe model spin at a scaled down "1000mph" , which would simply look like 1 rotation (360 degrees) per 24hrs. Not even the dust would get flung off it at that speed.
I would really like to see that experiment. A basketball rotating for 24 hours, one revolution, with 70% water to start. You're thinking the water would hug the ball? How would you scale back the gravity?
-
I would really like to see that experiment. A basketball rotating for 24 hours, one revolution, with 70% water to start. You're thinking the water would hug the ball? How would you scale back the gravity?
The ball would need enough mass to effectively attract the water molecules, and it would need to be far enough away from other bodies (the earth) so as to not be affected by their gravity.
In short, the ball would need to be about the size of a comet and in outer space.
-
As a "globe-tard", I don't understand how a flat-earther can look up into the sky with a telescope, see that all of the other planets as being round, and then think that only the earth is flat. :facepalm:
-
As a "globe-tard", I don't understand how a flat-earther can look up into the sky with a telescope, see that all of the other planets as being round, and then think that only the earth is flat. :facepalm:
Yes doesn't that just blow the mind. The other day I saw the moon in the early light of day. The moon was at the 12pm hour over my head. The sun was at the 10 pm hour and the lit part of the moon was at the 10 pm hour. It was so obvious that the sun was reflecting off the moon. I am really curious how flat Earthers would explain that.
-
As a "globe-tard", I don't understand how a flat-earther can look up into the sky with a telescope, see that all of the other planets as being round, and then think that only the earth is flat. :facepalm:
Round can also apply to a flat circle, so I'll assume you mean spherical.
When the sky is observed through a ground telescope, as the following video
https://youtu.be/tct5opOj9_w
All you can say with certainty about the observation is that a circular light source was observed. You can't infer a spherical shape for certain without another point of view.
Take the attached image as my point: Is it a hollow inverted pyramid, a regular pyramid with the peak towards the screen, or a 2D square with a cross in it? You wouldn't know unless you observed it from a substantially different point of view, and no one on Earth has shown that for the alleged "planets" (they are just stars)
-
As a "globe-tard", I don't understand how a flat-earther can look up into the sky with a telescope, see that all of the other planets as being round, and then think that only the earth is flat. :facepalm:
Mankind is dissimilar from animals in the same way that earth is dissimilar from other planets.
Mankind has an eternal soul, while animals do not. Earth has life, while other planets do not.
The earth is round but the land is flat.
We've never been to other planets (and we never will). Their land (if they even have any) could also be flat.
-
I would really like to see that experiment. A basketball rotating for 24 hours, one revolution, with 70% water to start. You're thinking the water would hug the ball? How would you scale back the gravity?
The ball would need enough mass to effectively attract the water molecules, and it would need to be far enough away from other bodies (the earth) so as to not be affected by their gravity.
Yes, the gravity needs to be scaled "back" with the size of the ball. Basically if you scaled the earth down, all atoms would scale down with it, increasing the density of the earth and of the water its gravity attracts.
If the earth really were a ball with its own gravitational pull, floating in space where external gravitational forces are for most intents and purposes negligible regarding things close to the earth, there would be no way for the water to just fall off, because there is no significant gravity pulling from wherever you decide "below" is.
The problem with the basketball experiment is that there is the earth, a giant powerful source of gravity, pulling the water off the basketball. It would be like trying to play with magnets next to one giant magnet such that nothing ever stays in place.
For the best chance of success, I'd recommend putting a powerful magnet inside the ball, and letting it attract ferrofluid, which would spread out over the ball. This would simulate gravity.
Round can also apply to a flat circle, so I'll assume you mean spherical.
When the sky is observed through a ground telescope, as the following video
https://youtu.be/tct5opOj9_w
All you can say with certainty about the observation is that a circular light source was observed. You can't infer a spherical shape for certain without another point of view.
Take the attached image as my point: Is it a hollow inverted pyramid, a regular pyramid with the peak towards the screen, or a 2D square with a cross in it? You wouldn't know unless you observed it from a substantially different point of view, and no one on Earth has shown that for the alleged "planets" (they are just stars)
Well, if you make enough observations throughout the night and day over enough days, you will see that the sun rotates like a spinning globe, so does jupiter, and you will see the moons of jupiter orbiting around it. The fact that you can see something on the sun or a planet rotate to the far side and reappear again as it rotates back into view, suggests they are globes. It may even be possible to detect the change in size of jupiter's moons as they get closer and further.
-
As a "globe-tard", I don't understand how a flat-earther can look up into the sky with a telescope, see that all of the other planets as being round, and then think that only the earth is flat. :facepalm:
Is this comment serious? Never did we claim the earth is one of many planets.
We are Geocentrists first of all. Second of all, we see the planets as luminaries like the stars, they were originally called wandering stars.
-
Is this comment serious? Never did we claim the earth is one of many planets.
We are Geocentrists first of all. Second of all, we see the planets as luminaries like the stars, they were originally called wandering stars.
What do you think Mars looks like? With a telescope you can see that Mars has two objects that go around it. At different times of the year these objects are seen in different places. They call these objects appearing to go around Mars moons. Why do you simplify the terminology to just luminaries?
-
What do you think Mars looks like? With a telescope you can see that Mars has two objects that go around it. At different times of the year these objects are seen in different places. They call these objects appearing to go around Mars moons. Why do you simplify the terminology to just luminaries?
Luminary moon same thing doesn’t change the shape our our terrestrial realm
-
Luminary moon same thing doesn’t change the shape our our terrestrial realm
At this moment I don't really care what shape the terrestrial realm is. I care about what flat earthers and globe earthers think is in the terrestrial realm (define please, so I make sure I have the right understanding.)
Why change all the terminology from what is used today? It just makes everything confusing. Isn't that just a way to keep people confused, so they never talk about what the truth is?
-
At this moment I don't really care what shape the terrestrial realm is. I care about what flat earthers and globe earthers think is in the terrestrial realm (define please, so I make sure I have the right understanding.)
Why change all the terminology from what is used today? It just makes everything confusing. Isn't that just a way to keep people confused, so they never talk about what the truth is?
I don't understand the question. What do you mean what is IN the terrestrial realm? We experience what's here every day.
As for using different terms, it's likely in an attempt to shake the linguistic programming that the propagandists have been engaging in for so long. Take for instance other "loaded" terms like "conspiracy theorist". It's very difficult to have rational discussions when language and minds are bogged down with these terms.
-
At this moment I don't really care what shape the terrestrial realm is.
Isn't that just a way to keep people confused, so they never talk about what the truth is?
If you don't care what the shape is, you don't care what the truth is, so why care what anyone says about this or that?
You are a bit of a mess of contradictions, which is why it can be hard to have patience with you.
-
If you don't care what the shape is, you don't care what the truth is, so why care what anyone says about this or that?
You are a bit of a mess of contradictions, which is why it can be hard to have patience with you.
Basically I meant that at this moment I don't want to discuss earth's shape. I want to find what truths both flat-earthers and globe-earthers share.
I am sorry I am a bit of a mess. I can understand that is hard to have patience with me. I have been fascinated with the night sky from the moment my grandfather showed me my first meteor shower, when I was 5 years old.
If you do see contradictions, please point them out to discuss. I will try really hard not to appear emotional. :cowboy:
-
I don't understand the question. What do you mean what is IN the terrestrial realm? We experience what's here every day.
As for using different terms, it's likely in an attempt to shake the linguistic programming that the propagandists have been engaging in for so long. Take for instance other "loaded" terms like "conspiracy theorist". It's very difficult to have rational discussions when language and minds are bogged down with these terms.
The comment below was why I asked the question in the first place.
Quote from: Gray2023 on May 23, 2025, 03:55:38 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/moon-experiment/msg986172/#msg986172)
What do you think Mars looks like? With a telescope you can see that Mars has two objects that go around it. At different times of the year these objects are seen in different places. They call these objects appearing to go around Mars moons. Why do you simplify the terminology to just luminaries?
Luminary moon same thing doesn’t change the shape our our terrestrial realm
I know that if I used a telescope and I looked at Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn I would see 5 distinctly different things in the sky. Do you agree? Why would we call these all luminaries? Does the comment above mean that all these "planets" are actually different moons?