Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Matthew on August 05, 2023, 07:30:09 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mxjwJh-GkQ
-
Yeah, I posted Part 1 on a different thread and actually anticipated the Glober objection, as weak as it was, that the dip in plane was offset perfectly by the downward rotation of the stars. That would require that the plane have been moving at the exact same speed as the earth was rotating, and the flight direction was Southwest, not West, so that was not possible.
Nevertheless, this video puts a nail in the coffin of the globe. It's simply not possible going in the Northeast direction.
Game over.
(https://media.tenor.com/Uj4RSxn_BTMAAAAC/game-over-glitch.gif)
-
Here's another good one. He probably needs to take the moon out to scale in terms of its distance from the earth, because the claim would be that you could see it around the bend if it's far enough away. But the angle is not right for that, and he would need to demonstrate that by moving the moon out to the appropriate distance from the earth. But another thing that's mighty peculiar is ... why is the moon so small? Going up 72 miles should not make a difference when the moon is alleged to be 267,000 miles from earth? Size of the moon and the fact that it's visible together demonstrate that the moon is on the other side of the earth plane but far away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVKKvqZeC3Y
-
Here's Part 1 of the video posted in the OP ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFz4ZZd1zj4
-
Here's another good one. He probably needs to take the moon out to scale in terms of its distance from the earth, because the claim would be that you could see it around the bend if it's far enough away. But the angle is not right for that, and he would need to demonstrate that by moving the moon out to the appropriate distance from the earth. But another thing that's mighty peculiar is ... why is the moon so small? Going up 72 miles should not make a difference when the moon is alleged to be 267,000 miles from earth? Size of the moon and the fact that it's visible together demonstrate that the moon is on the other side of the earth plane but far away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVKKvqZeC3Y
Some globers think they've seen all the evidence against the ball, so maintaining doubt is sure proof that earth is a ball. :laugh1:
Great video.
-
Only response to the video posted by Matthew thus far is a downthumb :laugh1:
I've turned this one over in my mind every way I can think, and I can see no refutation for it. For Part 1, I anticipated the Glober objection regarding the stars rotating downward at exactly the same rate that the plan is dipping (nearly impossible, statistically, but the Globers need only a .00001% chance to hold onto something with white knuckles). But this second video destroys it. It's over for the Globe.
-
Only response to the video posted by Matthew thus far is a downthumb :laugh1:
I've turned this one over in my mind every way I can think, and I can see no refutation for it. For Part 1, I anticipated the Glober objection regarding the stars rotating downward at exactly the same rate that the plan is dipping (nearly impossible, statistically, but the Globers need only a .00001% chance to hold onto something with white knuckles). But this second video destroys it. It's over for the Globe.
Just like when I post something I'm especially proud of the thread mysteriously dies :laugh1:
I take it as a concession of the debate
-
Only response to the video posted by Matthew thus far is a downthumb :laugh1:
I've turned this one over in my mind every way I can think, and I can see no refutation for it. For Part 1, I anticipated the Glober objection regarding the stars rotating downward at exactly the same rate that the plan is dipping (nearly impossible, statistically, but the Globers need only a .00001% chance to hold onto something with white knuckles). But this second video destroys it. It's over for the Globe.
I watched the first part and it was pretty definitive. Watching part 2 now. As far as I can see, a downthumb on flat earth threads means they have no answers, can't handle the truth and refuse to look further. Maybe it's because they think we don't believe in mountains. :jester:
-
Here's the original video from the pilot. You can see a rotation taking place where the stars on the left are moving downward ... which is what you would expect when travelling Northeast, and the North would be on the left side of his view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ7oOyoLpCw
-
Maybe it's because they think we don't believe in mountains. :jester:
... or birds.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkTmJkOUYAEcf_U.jpg)
-
Just to add some math. Planes would need to pitch down 1 degree for every 60 nautical miles.
So the plane in the video above travelled about 2,000 miles in the one unbroken stretch of video (going Northeast). That would be 1738 nautical miles. Divide by 60 and you get about 29 degrees that the plane would have had to pitch down (relative to its starting position). That's a very significant change in angle and would certainly cause the starts to rotate out of view or at least move very significantly (if you had a very large viewing angle from your window). But some of the starts barely move.
(https://content.nroc.org/DevelopmentalMath/COURSE_TEXT2_RESOURCE/U19_L1_T3_text_final_3_files/image088.gif)
-
Here's the original video from the pilot. You can see a rotation taking place where the stars on the left are moving downward ... which is what you would expect when travelling Northeast, and the North would be on the left side of his view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ7oOyoLpCw
Aside from either FE or globe, there is a gap between 24 and 27 secs. (between Natal and Cape Verde Islands). We see the big dipper, then clouds, and all of a sudden the little dipper, with all the stars rotating around the tip (the polar star), This star is rising slowly as the plane travels North. We can expect see all stars "rising" only when we look towards the East.
-
Aside from either FE or globe, there is a gap between 24 and 27 secs. (between Natal and Cape Verde Islands). We see the big dipper, then clouds, and all of a sudden the little dipper, with all the stars rotating around the tip (the polar star), This star is rising slowly as the plane travels North. We can expect see all stars "rising" only when we look towards the East.
Yeah, the analysis called out the gap, but there's still 2,000 miles of unbroken footage. I think you miss the whole point. Stars should be rising as the plane dips to work its way around the globe. Plane isn't travelling straight North but slightly Northeast. And the reason for this second video was to address the claim made by the Globers that in the "Part 1" the plane was travelling Southwest (slightly West) and therefore the descent of the stars would offset the rising of the starts due to the plane dipping. So he got another video going in the other direction where that claim cannot be made. Did you watch the video posted by Matthew, because it explains all of this?
-
I think you miss the whole point.
You do not think; you know. We all do. Willfully stupid gets old.
-
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1136,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/144/624/700/original/f9fde4466da7316d.png)
-
This new proof is insanely strong. It's as simple as the "see too far" proof and better still, you can't yell refraction to make it go away.
Easily one of my new go-to proofs.
-
This new proof is insanely strong. It's as simple as the "see too far" proof and better still, you can't yell refraction to make it go away.
Easily one of my new go-to proofs.
Right. "Refraction" can't bail them out here. I can find no possible explanation for this other than that we do not live on a ball.
-
Right. "Refraction" can't bail them out here. I can find no possible explanation for this other than that we do not live on a ball.
... well, unless you want to entertain the notion that we live on a ball that's at least 10 times larger than they tell us.
-
Right. "Refraction" can't bail them out here. I can find no possible explanation for this other than that we do not live on a ball.
And that's how I approach this subject, something we rarely see from the globe earth proponents, where I deliberately try to poke holes in every argument I see out there. I probably reject around 50% of the FE videos I see as being invalid or inconclusive. But what remains after all the bad argument I find insurmountable.
-
No attempts at refutation. Globers will just ignore it and will hope that it'll just go away if they ignore it long enough.
-
... well, unless you want to entertain the notion that we live on a ball that's at least 10 times larger than they tell us.
But two problems with that.
1. Where's all the extra land? The known land on earth and the current Globe model actually mesh nicely 100%. But from a mathematical perspective, there would be much more land if the earth were actually a 10X larger "ball" than Wikipedia and Science commonly tells us. I couldn't tell you how much more land (I'm bad at math) but I know it would be a lot! And the equation would involve PI.
2. Their whole model would go ka-boom. They have formulas for "gravity" and all that, and if the earth were 10X bigger it would be 10X more massive and gravity would be much greater. Their whole model would fall apart. Everything that hangs together now would no longer hang together. Many equations that work today would no longer work. You can't just have "10X bigger earth globe" and have everything still work fine with it. Quite the contrary. Wouldn't 10X bigger earth ball affect lunar eclipses? What about rotation speed? See what I mean?
The Globe model is like Modernism. Erroneous at the core, but complicated AND it's a complete system of error THAT IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT, in other words it all hangs together. It's built on a foundation of lies, but once you accept the foundation of lies, you can live & swim within that "system" and everything works, more or less. It's a PACKAGE of lies that infects everything, but it does have an explanation (albeit a weak one, in some cases) for everything. Just like the theory of Evolution. Until you look into it and poke holes in it, it SEEMS to explain everything, at least to shallow thinkers.
-
Yeah, the analysis called out the gap, but there's still 2,000 miles of unbroken footage. I think you miss the whole point. Stars should be rising as the plane dips to work its way around the globe. Plane isn't travelling straight North but slightly Northeast. And the reason for this second video was to address the claim made by the Globers that in the "Part 1" the plane was travelling Southwest (slightly West) and therefore the descent of the stars would offset the rising of the starts due to the plane dipping. So he got another video going in the other direction where that claim cannot be made. Did you watch the video posted by Matthew, because it explains all of this?
I just watched the first video and I do see issues with both that neither support or disproove FE or globe. In both videos he's tracking the wrong stars to observe a vertical movement because they are rotating. Unfortunately there is no reference star when flying south but for the NE bound flight he should have picked the polar star. It cannot be seen south of the equator but in the second lapse it's going up. The star he picked (the tip of Draco's tail) to the left of the polar star is rotating from the NW to the W, but also moving slightly up like polaris. That is why it seems that it doesn't change its location when landing in Lisbon. It can be argued that the effect of polaris moving up is due to perspective. That is why I think the movement of the stars is not a good tool to prove or disprove either theory. Regarding the constelation view in google earth, the virtual travel view does not take into consideration the travel time lapse from one point to the other. The sky it shows is froze at the same time in the start and end locations, it only considers the vertical position. That is why it does not rotate.
On a different note I have not seen a FE model that explains why along the equator daylight lasts 12 hrs every day of the year, and why in summer the days are longer as you move towards the north pole but the sun never is at the zenith north of the tropic of cancer.
-
I just watched the first video and I do see issues with both that neither support or disproove FE or globe. In both videos he's tracking the wrong stars to observe a vertical movement because they are rotating. Unfortunately there is no reference star when flying south but for the NE bound flight he should have picked the polar star. It cannot be seen south of the equator but in the second lapse it's going up. The star he picked (the tip of Draco's tail) to the left of the polar star is rotating from the NW to the W, but also moving slightly up like polaris. That is why it seems that it doesn't change its location when landing in Lisbon. It can be argued that the effect of polaris moving up is due to perspective. That is why I think the movement of the stars is not a good tool to prove or disprove either theory. Regarding the constelation view in google earth, the virtual travel view does not take into consideration the travel time lapse from one point to the other. The sky it shows is froze at the same time in the start and end locations, it only considers the vertical position. That is why it does not rotate.
On a different note I have not seen a FE model that explains why along the equator daylight lasts 12 hrs every day of the year, and why in summer the days are longer as you move towards the north pole but the sun never is at the zenith north of the tropic of cancer.
Imagine you're on top of the globe and look up at the night sky, you see some stars.
Imagine you're now teleported to the other side, you now see different stars.
Now imagine instrad that you didn't teleport but went eastward to the other side, the stars gradually change.
And now look at the footage, what does it show? 2000 miles and stars are still here.
What part isn't clear? Can you imagine a ball and looking from different sides of it and seing different things in the sky? What doesn't compute?
-
I just watched the first video and I do see issues with both that neither support or disproove FE or globe. In both videos he's tracking the wrong stars to observe a vertical movement because they are rotating. Unfortunately there is no reference star when flying south but for the NE bound flight he should have picked the polar star. It cannot be seen south of the equator but in the second lapse it's going up. The star he picked (the tip of Draco's tail) to the left of the polar star is rotating from the NW to the W, but also moving slightly up like polaris. That is why it seems that it doesn't change its location when landing in Lisbon. It can be argued that the effect of polaris moving up is due to perspective. That is why I think the movement of the stars is not a good tool to prove or disprove either theory. Regarding the constelation view in google earth, the virtual travel view does not take into consideration the travel time lapse from one point to the other. The sky it shows is froze at the same time in the start and end locations, it only considers the vertical position. That is why it does not rotate.
On a different note I have not seen a FE model that explains why along the equator daylight lasts 12 hrs every day of the year, and why in summer the days are longer as you move towards the north pole but the sun never is at the zenith north of the tropic of cancer.
Complete and utter bunk. You can see about where the pivot point is, toward the left side of the screen / window, precisely where you'd expect to see it if the plane is travelling Northeast, where you can see one star rotating down, and the other to the right of it rotating up. You can pick out some starts to the right of the one he picked that are neither going up nor down, while those to the left are doing down and those on the right going up ... SLIGHTLY. And the entire field of stars he was looking it would have rotated off window, with a 30-degree dip in the angle of the plane across the duration of the flight. That degree of rotation that can be seen is not enough to account for a 30 degree dip in the angle of the plane. Most of the stars across his entire window BARELY move, moving enough to account only for the change of the plane's direction, altitude, and their rotation ... but inexplicable given the alleged 30 degrees of dip in the plane's nose. You still clearly have no idea what the video shows. Watch it again.
I've already explained the mode that explains the duration of daylight. You must have missed it. Nice try changing the subject.
-
Complete and utter bunk. You can see about where the pivot point is, toward the left side of the screen / window, precisely where you'd expect to see it if the plane is travelling Northeast, where you can see one star rotating down, and the other to the right of it rotating up. You can pick out some starts to the right of the one he picked that are neither going up nor down, while those to the left are doing down and those on the right going up ... SLIGHTLY. And the entire field of stars he was looking it would have rotated off window, with a 30-degree dip in the angle of the plane across the duration of the flight. That degree of rotation that can be seen is not enough to account for a 30 degree dip in the angle of the plane. Most of the stars across his entire window BARELY move, moving enough to account only for the change of the plane's direction, altitude, and their rotation ... but inexplicable given the alleged 30 degrees of dip in the plane's nose. You still clearly have no idea what the video shows. Watch it again.
I've already explained the mode that explains the duration of daylight. You must have missed it. Nice try changing the subject.
North of the equator the pivot star is always Polaris (the one sailors picked in order to determine latitude, all the other ones revolve around it and should not be used as pivot). You can easily identify Polaris in the video at 08:20 min. If you're using your computer keep your cursor there. As the video progresses, Polaris moves upward and at 08:46 min you cannot see it anymore. Also, Cabo Verde islands are at latitude 17.0* and Lisbon at latitude 38.7*, so there's 11.7* difference, meaning that if you are at Lisbon, Polaris will be 11.7* higher over the horizon compared to how you would see it in Cabo Verde. If we use Polaris as a reference for the dip in the plane's nose, we should expect 11.7*, not 30*. Any other star is affected by the "sky rotation" so they cannot be picked as the pivot from the plane perspective. Again, this has nothing to do with flat or globe earth. I'm just pointing out the issues with this guy's explanation.
-
Part 3 for those in doubt, this is further proof earth is not a globe. Stars show 4,656 miles and no curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RagVOOW-sa8
-
I've actually been interacting with Ben (Taboo conspiracy) about this issue and also commented on a refutation attempt by "Bob the Science Guy". I called out Bob for cheating, where he inexplicably rolled the clock back 4 hours to try to make the star in the same place when it got to his destination after a 4-hour flight. :laugh1:
-
Part 3 for those in doubt, this is further proof earth is not a globe.
It ain't doubt, my friend. It is denial.
-
No attempts at refutation. Globers will just ignore it and will hope that it'll just go away if they ignore it long enough.
You ignored my response to this video twice, soon to be a 3rd time. It got posted in one thread, I argued against it, so it got posted in another thread, I copy and pasted my reply there, and now a new thread is made just for the video with claims that nobody's attempting to refute it. How bad willed.
-
Part 3 for those in doubt, this is further proof earth is not a globe. Stars show 4,656 miles and no curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RagVOOW-sa8
Looks like Youtube took down the 3rd in the series. Naturally. It completed the first two with a period.
-
Here's an analysis of the 3rd video by an engineer, demonstrating that there's no way we should have seen what we did on a globe ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTRDkb1rHQY
-
Would this apply to the moon and sun as well? Shouldn't we see the sun and move kind of move upwards or whatever as well if the earth was a globe or not?
-
Would this apply to the moon and sun as well? Shouldn't we see the sun and move kind of move upwards or whatever as well if the earth was a globe or not?
Yes, in theory. Problem is that it's hard to figure those out without some sophisticated mathematical analysis since the sun and moon rise and set a lot on their own. If the moon were to stand still (like during the famous incident with Joshua), then it would be simple enough to measure and figure out.
-
I happened to watch this video last night as it popped up in my Bitchute feed. Studying plane crashes is a weird hobby of mine so I've watched HUNDREDS of crash simulations. One thing is clear...if a plane flies continuously with it's nose down (which is what be required to maintain a level altitude with a curved Earth) the plane would crash. Plus this nose-down navigation would be taught in flight school (it isn't), recorded, and observed. There's no evidence that aircraft fly in this manner. Also, gravity doesn't keep the planes nose-down.....this is crazy. The star movement evidence is strong.
I'm almost convinced.
-
I'm almost convinced.
And yet it is so easy to be deceived, especially when you don't know everything and look at something from only one or a few different angles and not all. Pitching the plane's nose up or down is very insignificant in this matter considering the complexities of flight, regardless of the shape of the earth.
-
Anyone know what music they use in the long distance night flight videos?
-
Posting this here instead of making a new thread.
https://youtu.be/zZGjO1szbFg?si=dVD34gBxosjjlytk
How is this possible on a ball earth?
-
Posting this here instead of making a new thread.
https://youtu.be/zZGjO1szbFg?si=dVD34gBxosjjlytk
How is this possible on a ball earth?
Yikes. I don't know how much more evidence can be amassed that we do not live on a globe. Wake up, scoffers. You've been brainwashed and lied to.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/UHF
UHF waves are very weakly reflected by the ionized layers of the upper atmosphere. Therefore, unlike longer waves, they bend very little around the curvature of the Earth and are easily obstructed by tall buildings and mountains. They can, however, be concentrated into narrow, highly directional signal beams. These characteristics make UHF suitable for line-of-sight applications that require high accuracy.
There was something similar where an internet provider beamed an admittedly-line-of-site microwave beam 250 or so miles across the Mediterranean, which is also not possible.
Also, no one has ever proven that radio waves bounce off the ionosphere. This was invented (made up) to explain how Marconi was able to send radio signals over 2,000 miles over the Atlantic.
-
Posting this here instead of making a new thread.
https://youtu.be/zZGjO1szbFg?si=dVD34gBxosjjlytk
How is this possible on a ball earth?
Atmospheric duct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
The reduced refractive index due to lower densities at the higher altitudes in the Earth's atmosphere bends the signals back toward the Earth. Signals in a higher refractive index layer, i.e., duct, tend to remain in that layer because of the reflection and refraction encountered at the boundary with a lower refractive index material. In some weather conditions, such as inversion layers, density changes so rapidly that waves are guided around the curvature of the earth at constant altitude.
The YouTube video that you linked is refering to an article posted by thethingsnetwork.org:
New LoRa world record: 1336 km / 830 mi
https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/article/new-lora-world-record-1336-km-830-mi
In an article from 2018, they explained the reason for a (previous) record:
Did we just prove the world isn't flat? or maybe it is ?
https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/article/atmospheric-duct
This long range is due to the formation of evaporation ducts in the atmosphere over the ocean. These 'ducts' are layers in the Earth's atmosphere where refractive index variation traps the signals, suppresses the vertical component and causes it to follow the curvature of the Earth. Atmospheric ducts are commonly found over water bodies due to vaporisation, and are specifically known as evaporation ducts.
-
Atmospheric duct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
:facepalm: It's one more ridiculous and pathetic made-up phenomenon after another. Nothing about the atmosphere can cause radio waves to bend down by 85 miles. Refraction downward is caused by increasing density, and you can't have atmospheric density increasing for a distance of 830 miles, or else you'd practically be walking in solid lead by the time you got to the other side. You'd have to have one of these "ducts" every 3-4 miles (the maximum line of site distance to the horizon being 5 miles) over the course of 850 miles. These allegedly happen over the ocean, but then how can you explain photographs of the Alps taken 750+ miles away over land when (given the respective altitudes, they should have been hidden by 45 miles of curvature)? It's one magical phenomenon after another, starting with their having made up "ionosphere bounce" when Marconi first defied the curvature.
Basically, all these theories come for a massive begging of the question, where they assume the earth is a globe and then come up with one crazy (unprovable) theory after another to explain thing ... since the globe is certain fact.
-
These allegedly happen over the ocean, but then how can you explain photographs of the Alps taken 750+ miles away over land when (given the respective altitudes, they should have been hidden by 45 miles of curvature)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyFrC6ZHmPs