Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Matthew on January 28, 2022, 10:19:58 AM
-
I don't trust David Weiss, random Youtubers, or the other guy (the one behind Taboo Conspiracy channel; I forget his name at the moment).
I trust MY OWN SENSES.
The photo I took, below, SHOULD BE impossible according to the Globe Earth model with the sun being 93 million miles away. The rays should all be going the same direction.
It's basic geometry. Admit it. I have you stumped on this one.
If you believe the photo, below, is possible with a huge sun 93 million miles away, then you failed basic Geometry.
What, is there some kind of LOCAL, CLOSE prism in the sky that's somehow deflecting/distributing the sun's rays into a 180 degree arc towards the ground? If it's a magical prism, why isn't making a rainbow?
The Earth is flat and stationary. The sun is close and local.
P.S. I never thought about this, or noticed it, until I watched some pro-Flat Earth videos. But now I can't un-see it. It's obvious to me NOW that this phenomenon (the sun's rays spreading out ALL DIRECTIONS below the clouds, under certain circuмstances) blows a huge gaping hole in the Globe Earth/spinning ball paradigm.
-
I don't trust David Weiss, random Youtubers, or the other guy (the one behind Taboo Conspiracy channel; I forget his name at the moment).
I trust MY OWN SENSES.
The photo I took, below, SHOULD BE impossible according to the Globe Earth model with the sun being 93 million miles away. The rays should all be going the same direction.
It's basic geometry. Admit it. I have you stumped on this one.
If you believe the photo, below, is possible with a huge sun 93 million miles away, then you failed basic Geometry.
What, is there some kind of LOCAL, CLOSE prism in the sky that's somehow deflecting/distributing the sun's rays into a 180 degree arc towards the ground? If it's a magical prism, why isn't making a rainbow?
The Earth is flat and stationary. The sun is close and local.
P.S. I never thought about this, or noticed it, until I watched some pro-Flat Earth videos. But now I can't un-see it. It's obvious to me NOW that this phenomenon (the sun's rays spreading out ALL DIRECTIONS below the clouds, under certain circuмstances) blows a huge gaping hole in the Globe Earth/spinning ball paradigm.
I have noticed this phenomenon myself and wondered. The rebuttal to it is that it is caused by atmospheric spreading, like a local prism. I am interested in a rebuttal to that argument.
-
I trust MY OWN SENSES.
There are rays from the sun to each point on the surface of the earth. All rays you see in the image lead from the sun each to a point on the surface of the earth. This is completely independent of the distance between sun and earth.
Watching your image, you think that the sun is very near. Now imagine the sun would move away from your eye to a much larger distance. What would change in the image? Nothing! The sun would stay at the same location within the image, and the rays would still lead from the sun each to a point (the same as before) on the surface of the earth. All angles on the 2D image would stay the same.
You can't use the image to determine the distance between sun and earth.
-
I have noticed this phenomenon myself and wondered. The rebuttal to it is that it is caused by atmospheric spreading, like a local prism. I am interested in a rebuttal to that argument.
I've thought about this, but the fact that they spread around a central axis that just happens to be right below where the sun appears to be ... odds are trillions to one. Light can bend and refract all over the place, but to refract in different directions from a point that just so happens to be below where the sun appears to be? In fact, there should be no spot "below where the sun happens to be anyway" as the sun's rays should be parallel to each other everywhere. In fact, the entire Eratosthenes experiment assumes that to be the case. I can find no plausible explanation for this phenomenon other than that the sun is much close and much smaller than "scientists" claim.
-
Eratosthenes' experiment to prove earth is a globe depends on the idea that the sun's rays come in parallel. Yet, when it's convenient to say that atmospheric conditions spread the rays, those married to the globe will use that argument, too. I've seen sun rays spread as they do in the OP, but on a clear day, with little to no atmospheric interference like clouds. So, when do the sun's rays come in parallel and can the globers prove it?
-
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/4tn3o.png)
Parallel as well as nearly parallel lines aren't necessarily parallel or nearly parallel when projected on a 2D image.
Everyone knows that the rails are parallel in reality, and everyone sees that on the image they aren't parallel at all.
-
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/4tn3o.png)
Parallel as well as nearly parallel lines aren't necessarily parallel or nearly parallel when projected on a 2D image.
Everyone knows that the rails are parallel in reality, and everyone sees that on the image they aren't parallel at all.
You are kidding, right? What you said doesn't make sense because we're not talking convergence of railroad tracks but the observation of spreading celestial sun rays, two totally different things. Matthew took the picture in the OP and I assume he looked before he shot. The sun's rays are not parallel. They aren't parallel in 2D. And I would hope Matthew would have reported if the sun's rays were actually parallel in 3D. Matthew?
-
You are kidding, right? What you said doesn't make sense because we're not talking convergence of railroad tracks but the observation of spreading celestial sun rays, two totally different things. Matthew took the picture in the OP and I assume he looked before he shot. The sun's rays are not parallel. They aren't parallel in 2D. And I would hope Matthew would have reported if the sun's rays were actually parallel in 3D. Matthew?
Kidding? No, why? Have you ever looked along a railroad track? It looks like it does on the image. Same with the sun rays. Matthew took the image and posted it, because what he saw was what the image shows (non-parallel rays).
-
Kidding? No, why? Have you ever looked along a railroad track? It looks like it does on the image. Same with the sun rays. Matthew took the image and posted it, because what he saw was what the image shows (non-parallel rays).
The two don't compare because we can prove the tracks don't converge by the changing observation angle and we know they are fixed. But no matter where you go, or what angle you observe them, not even with atmospheric conditions, the sun's rays are not parallel. The sun radiates, sends out rays. Radiate means to diverge or spread from or as if from a central point.
-
The two don't compare because we can prove the tracks don't converge by the changing observation angle and we know they are fixed. But no matter where you go, or what angle you observe them, not even with atmospheric conditions, the sun's rays are not parallel. The sun radiates, sends out rays. Radiate means to diverge or spread from or as if from a central point.
Yes, we see on the images that the rays start from the sun and go straight to different places on the surface of the earth. They aren't parallel. Nobody denies this. Now, the FE claim is: the image shows that the sun is a few thousand miles away. But the truth is, the image is not suitable to determine whether the sun is a few thousand miles away, or dozens of million miles. What you see on the image are projections of the rays which reduce their actual length. And you can't tell how much the length is reduced by the projection.
-
I estimate that the clouds are a few hundred meters above ground (on the more recently posted image). Judging from the rays, the sun is less than one mile above ground, disproving FE theory (several thousand miles).
:fryingpan:
-
Yes, we see on the images that the rays start from the sun and go straight to different places on the surface of the earth. They aren't parallel. Nobody denies this. Now, the FE claim is: the image shows that the sun is a few thousand miles away. But the truth is, the image is not suitable to determine whether the sun is a few thousand miles away, or dozens of million miles. What you see on the image are projections of the rays which reduce their actual length. And you can't tell how much the length is reduced by the projection.
The rays would have to show some kind of parallel tendencies, or actually easily proven to be parallel, if the sun is 93 million miles away. Nothing demonstrates it. Rather, the opposite, the radiating rays coming from the sun always show they aren't parallel. Why spend time defending what has never been shown to be the case when we have repeated demonstrations of radiation? Because it debunks the narrative? We all know the narrative is often a lie. We also all know that the term radiation is practically synonymous with the nature of the sun by experience. Parallel rays have no association with the visual or the experimental interaction with the sun, except within the unseen, indemonstrable narrative.
-
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/4tn3o.png)
Parallel as well as nearly parallel lines aren't necessarily parallel or nearly parallel when projected on a 2D image.
Everyone knows that the rails are parallel in reality, and everyone sees that on the image they aren't parallel at all.
Oh, so NOW you've discovered how perspective works, eh? ... after denying it with sunsets.
But evidently you need to do more work in this area. Sun's rays are not coming toward the viewer but going diverging in all directions from a central axis right below where the sun appears to be.
So ... FAIL.
(https://marckayetoday.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/darth-vader-epic-fail.jpg)
-
There's also lots of footage from amateur balloons (including those not equipped with fish-eye lenses) that show clear HOTSPOTS on tops of the clouds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GMcMTV_prc
-
You would need to see where the "sun rays" hit the ground in pools of light in order to use geometry to prove this. Once you have the locations on the ground for these rays, then you can use geometry.
All you have shown here is basic perspective.
-
There's also lots of footage from amateur balloons (including those not equipped with fish-eye lenses) that show clear HOTSPOTS on tops of the clouds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GMcMTV_prc
Look at 1:05 - 1:18 in the video. How is that possible if the sun 93 million miles away and the sun's rays are coming to earth parallel?
-
Look at 1:05 - 1:18 in the video. How is that possible if the sun 93 million miles away and the sun's rays are coming to earth parallel?
Agreed that this is an interesting observation, however, in order for it to be proof, you need more than one spot to triangulate it. Maybe it is more like a reflection?
Some pro flat earth arguments are very compelling. But, I wouldn't call the images in this thread, "proof".
-
Agreed that this is an interesting observation, however, in order for it to be proof, you need more than one spot to triangulate it. Maybe it is more like a reflection?
Some pro flat earth arguments are very compelling. But, I wouldn't call the images in this thread, "proof".
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't call it "proof". I tend to use the word "evidence" rather than proof. I've seen thousands of pieces of evidence over time that to my prove with very little room for doubt that the earth is flat. That is after all, how, "science" works in most cases. You hypothesize and then you find evidence, and there's rarely smoking gun proof, but various theories that fit with the known facts. And Flat Earth fits more with the known facts than globe earth, in my opinion.
-
Really the way it must be approached to take an objective view of the matter ... is to disregard anything we think we know about "space" and the "planets". Given the fact that NASA and the other space agencies have been exposed as perpetrating one hoax and fraud after another, I simply cannot accept anything they have to offer as any kind of "evidence". Could SOME of what they claim be true? Certainly. But what is true and what isn't I cannot say. They have no credibility and no "authority" whatsoever with regard to these questions.
Take that off the table, our perception of space and the solar system and planets, and now, from a terrestrial perspective, attempt to demonstrate whether the earth is a globe or whether it's flat.
-
Oh, so NOW you've discovered how perspective works, eh? ... after denying it with sunsets.
You didn't explain your ridiculous idea, that "perspective" could make us see the sun disappear below the horizon.
But evidently you need to do more work in this area.
I? Evidently?
So ... FAIL.
I explained in Reply #2 why you can't use the image to determine the distance between sun and earth. Your answer: An idiotic hollywood image, just proving that you spent your life watching hollywood, not studying geometry, geodesy, and the like.
I explained in Reply #10 why using the image to argue against a very far sun is ridiculous, when at the same time flat earthers (you yourself) claim the sun to be less far but still very far. Your answer: same as above.
But I forgive you. You have shown in all FE debate that you really can't do better.
-
I think that the resurgence of people promoting a marginally obscure and provably false hypothesis such as “Flat Earth” is primarily an anthropological and sociological phenomenon completely unrelated to scientific endeavors or even the desire for knowledge and truth.
This is a reactionary movement that seeks to reject the modern world and all its pomps by attacking the foundational support for its existence i.e empiricism and the scientific method; instead promoting personal observation and data interpretation due to a fundamental distrust of science and scientists as a whole.
Moreover, there seems to be an implied philosophy of understanding that posits a posture in which anything accepted “mainstream” must be false and a conspiratorial cover up designed to delude the poor saps who are gullible enough to swallow the narrative whole. This defensive response is based on the issues inherent with modernity as well as individual experience of it due to the proliferation of scientific theories at odds with traditional social and religious understandings. The movement then seeks to separate itself as a different, and indeed superior breed of person, who questions anything and everything regardless of individual competence to assess the topic at hand.
The movement is socially reactionary and aggressively militant in its presuppositions because there is much more at stake than if the earth is flat for these people, rather if I accept this then I accept my biggest enemy; the modern world.
-
So flat-earth topics are coming out of the ghetto?
oops... looks like it already did.
-
I think that the resurgence of people promoting a marginally obscure and provably false hypothesis such as “Flat Earth” is primarily an anthropological and sociological phenomenon completely unrelated to scientific endeavors or even the desire for knowledge and truth.
This is a reactionary movement that seeks to reject the modern world and all its pomps by attacking the foundational support for its existence i.e empiricism and the scientific method; instead promoting personal observation and data interpretation due to a fundamental distrust of science and scientists as a whole.
Moreover, there seems to be an implied philosophy of understanding that posits a posture in which anything accepted “mainstream” must be false and a conspiratorial cover up designed to delude the poor saps who are gullible enough to swallow the narrative whole. This defensive response is based on the issues inherent with modernity as well as individual experience of it due to the proliferation of scientific theories at odds with traditional social and religious understandings. The movement then seeks to separate itself as a different, and indeed superior breed of person, who questions anything and everything regardless of individual competence to assess the topic at hand.
The movement is socially reactionary and aggressively militant in its presuppositions because there is much more at stake than if the earth is flat for these people, rather if I accept this then I accept my biggest enemy; the modern world.
Wow, this is a fascinating post. Very insightful, and I agree with every word of it. I hope you stick around here for a while at least, my friend! :cowboy:
-
I think that the resurgence of people promoting a marginally obscure and provably false hypothesis such as “Flat Earth” is primarily an anthropological and sociological phenomenon completely unrelated to scientific endeavors or even the desire for knowledge and truth.
This is a reactionary movement that seeks to reject the modern world and all its pomps by attacking the foundational support for its existence i.e empiricism and the scientific method; instead promoting personal observation and data interpretation due to a fundamental distrust of science and scientists as a whole.
Moreover, there seems to be an implied philosophy of understanding that posits a posture in which anything accepted “mainstream” must be false and a conspiratorial cover up designed to delude the poor saps who are gullible enough to swallow the narrative whole. This defensive response is based on the issues inherent with modernity as well as individual experience of it due to the proliferation of scientific theories at odds with traditional social and religious understandings. The movement then seeks to separate itself as a different, and indeed superior breed of person, who questions anything and everything regardless of individual competence to assess the topic at hand.
The movement is socially reactionary and aggressively militant in its presuppositions because there is much more at stake than if the earth is flat for these people, rather if I accept this then I accept my biggest enemy; the modern world.
It seems to me, that here on CI, people who don't feel themselves safe to judge that the "pope" is a heretic and therefore not a Catholic, and therefore lost office (or didn't have any such thing to lose in the first place), or don't feel themselves safe to judge that they have to shun heretics as well as supporters of heretics, use FE as an outlet, as a valve, since FE is a topic where they're allowed to freely speculate.
Is there anyone here on CI, who defends FE and is decidedly shunning communicatio in sacris with all Novus Ordo hierarchy and disciples?
P.S.: I'm not saying that this concerns all non-sedes.
-
I think that the resurgence of people promoting a marginally obscure and provably false hypothesis such as “Flat Earth” is primarily an anthropological and sociological phenomenon completely unrelated to scientific endeavors or even the desire for knowledge and truth.
This is a reactionary movement that seeks to reject the modern world and all its pomps by attacking the foundational support for its existence i.e empiricism and the scientific method; instead promoting personal observation and data interpretation due to a fundamental distrust of science and scientists as a whole.
I disagree. It has more to do with the fact that people have access to equipment (in particular the Nikon P900 camera) that allowed them to do investigations on their own. Certainly it doesn't help the situation that NASA has been caught repeatedly faking things. So that makes them entirely suspect on everything. They can no longer be trusted as an authority on the matter. Remove the authority of NASA and the space agencies, and what do you have in terms of proof that the earth is a globe? Precious little.
Many of the Flat Earthers started off with realizing that the moon landings were a hoax. As they were exposing the hoax, they found more and more other kinds of fakery being perpetrated by the space agencies. Some of them in fact started out looking at the Flat Earth question thinking it was a psyop to discredit those who came to realize the moon landing hoax. Most FEs when they first started looking into the question were incredibly skeptical and thought the notion was stupid.
People were skeptical of Youtube videos, and rightly so, so many of them performed the experiments themselves, with modern equipment that had become accessible and affordable, and had the same results.
So, no, you're way off base.
-
:facepalm:
-
It seems to me, that here on CI, people who don't feel themselves safe to judge that the "pope" is a heretic and therefore not a Catholic, and therefore lost office (or didn't have any such thing to lose in the first place), or don't feel themselves safe to judge that they have to shun heretics as well as supporters of heretics, use FE as an outlet, as a valve, since FE is a topic where they're allowed to freely speculate.
Is there anyone here on CI, who defends FE and is decidedly shunning communicatio in sacris with all Novus Ordo hierarchy and disciples?
P.S.: I'm not saying that this concerns all non-sedes.
I'm a proponent of FE and I believe it to be morally certain that Jorge Beroglio is not the Pope, and hold it certain that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. But I disagree with your position regarding communicatio in sacris and with regard to dogmatic sedevacantism. Even the Dimonds don't accept your communicatio in sacris position.
Funny that I've noticed the opposite. SVs tend to be most hostile against FE.
FE and SVism are entirely unrelated.
-
I'm a proponent of FE and I believe it to be morally certain that Jorge Beroglio is not the Pope, and hold it certain that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. But I disagree with your position regarding communicatio in sacris and with regard to dogmatic sedevacantism. Even the Dimonds don't accept your communicatio in sacris position.
Funny that I've noticed the opposite. SVs tend to be most hostile against FE.
That's not the opposite. That's confirmation.
-
I think that the resurgence of people promoting a marginally obscure and provably false hypothesis such as “Flat Earth” is primarily an anthropological and sociological phenomenon completely unrelated to scientific endeavors or even the desire for knowledge and truth.
Nice theory, but you're wrong.
It has nothing to do with the world, my feelings, my needs, or my tendencies. It has EVERYTHING to do with the truth. What is the TRUTH -- that is what I want.
All the data, the pieces of evidence, support the Flat Earth hypothesis. All Globe Earth has for support is the space agencies, which are SERIAL LIARS. Sorry, can't trust them. Never trust a compulsive liar.
All the evidence of a down-to-earth man standing on earth points to Flat Earth as well. We're supposed to be moving through the near-infinite Universe about 4 different ways. (The galaxy is moving, the sun is moving, the earth is moving, and the earth is spinning). And then you have photos of perfectly still lakes with crystal clear water, reflecting the beautiful scenery above it like a man-made mirror. NO distortion. Not a single ripple.
Sorry, I don't buy nonsense. Not about the nature of the earth, COVID, 9/11, the holo___, the JQ, or anything else.
-
All Globe Earth has for support is the space agencies ...
Ladislaus said the same above. But that's simply not true. Space Agencies are recent while Globe Earth is ancient.
I don't want to offend anyone, but how can y'all CI flat earthers repeat such BS after all the contributions which showed this idea wrong? You make yourselves look like freaks on THC or whatever. Not truth seekers, but truth rejecters.
:facepalm:
-
Ladislaus said the same above. But that's simply not true. Space Agencies are recent while Globe Earth is ancient.
I don't want to offend anyone, but how can y'all CI flat earthers repeat such BS after all the contributions which showed this idea wrong? You make yourselves look like freaks on THC or whatever. Not truth seekers, but truth rejecters.
Spare me the facepalms. I could use them as well ("right back atcha") but I won't. I don't feel the need for ad-hominems, because I have nothing to lose in my quest for the truth. If I could give up my belief in a globe-shaped spinning ball earth, I could certainly give up a SUPER unpopular and controversial belief such as Flat Earth.
Likewise I could say the same thing about you ("truth rejecter") and those who stubbornly reject the mountain of evidence pointing to FE with the weakest and lamest of excuses.
Now where is all this "ancient" evidence? I'm only interested in the facts, the evidence. Preferably facts I don't have to take on human faith or authority -- especially the authority of a serial liar ;)
-
Spare me the facepalms. I could use them as well ("right back atcha") but I won't. I don't feel the need for ad-hominems, because I have nothing to lose in my quest for the truth. If I could give up my belief in a globe-shaped spinning ball earth, I could certainly give up a SUPER unpopular and controversial belief such as Flat Earth.
Likewise I could say the same thing about you ("truth rejecter") and those who stubbornly reject the mountain of evidence pointing to FE with the weakest and lamest of excuses.
Now where is all this "ancient" evidence? I'm only interested in the facts, the evidence. Preferably facts I don't have to take on human faith or authority -- especially the authority of a serial liar ;)
Matthew, I won't demand that you study geodesy and the history of geodesy. So let's start with Reply #2. Please give me an answer refuting Reply #2 in this thread. Or take Reply #10.
-
There are rays from the sun to each point on the surface of the earth.
Event the dark side? :fryingpan: :jester: (see I can use these as well)
Seriously, however, the point is that the rays should be parallel with one another not radiating about from an axis that is directly beneath where the sun appears to be.
-
Seriously, however, the point is that the rays should be parallel with one another not radiating about from an axis that is directly beneath where the sun appears to be.
Why do you think so? Why parallel? The rays come from the sun and go straight to various locations on the flat or globe earth. Isn't it undisputed, that they start from the sun, which is at least several thousand miles away (flat earth) or many more (globe earth), and which appears to be a relatively small spot at the heaven, and from there they lead here to where I am, and also miles away from me, in front, to my left, to my right, and so forth?
Whatever the distance of the sun, the rays come from where the sun is seen on the sky (also on the image) and they lead to places on earth, which are illuminated by the sun at that time. And that's what the images show. Nothing else.
-
"Look folks, I've got an image where rays from the sun illuminate various places on the earth. They all come from the sun above and lead in various directions, aren't parallel at all, and lead down to earth there ahead, some to the left, others to the right, and illuminate my own place as well as other places I see in front of me."
And therefore the earth is flat? :fryingpan:
And therefore the sun is not millions but thousands of miles away? :fryingpan:
You fall for idiot youtube fake science and fake explanations. As if the globe earth model would imply that rays don't go straight from the sun in all directions, including to whatever locations on globe earth, where there's no obstacle between the sun and the surface of the earth.
The images show one thing: Rays go straight from the sun to several locations on earth (and some even go elsewhere). How can you believe that this proves any point you're trying to make?
Get real!
-
Marion seems to be in a near-panic about this.
First, I should point out that ANY lame explanation will do, for someone determined to believe (or not believe!) I've seen this in my life more times than I can count. Call it human nature. I'm very close to starting a new thread on this phenomenon -- which is closely related to the broad division of humanity into the "awake" and "asleep" -- the aware vs. sheeple, the red-pilled vs. those still in the Matrix. But I'll leave that high-level philosophical topic for now.
But for now I'll leave it at this: It's amazing, really, how effectively brainwashing can stifle common sense in the majority of people.
This solar rays issue for example.
Even though I can't see the curvature (ever), and I can never see buildings leaning backwards (away from me) when they're 10 or 20 miles away, and even though I never observe the slightest curvature over water (which is always flatter than a pancake) -- I'm somehow seeing rays meant for the whole daylit side of the earth, from my house on the surface? Rays which are not that large -- just compare them to the size of the clouds.
This is the crap that caused me to stop believing in Globe Earth. There is just too much nonsense, too many contradictions -- and too many lies.
Thanks be to God, I seem to have been formed or gifted in some way, such that I am not willing to believe in lies. In particular, I seem to be immune to gaslighting. When I see something with my own eyes, and someone tells me, "That's not what you're seeing. You're crazy." I'm unable to believe them -- I call them crazy instead. I am most grateful for this grace, and I wouldn't trade it for anything -- even if I ended up like the protagonist in 1984.
We're supposed to believe in Refraction Fairies that magically remove the curve of the earth like a tool in Photoshop, leaving no distortion effects at all, even leaving the background behind the large objects untouched!
We're supposed to believe that there's a conspiracy -- perhaps perpetrated by a network of fairies -- to completely hide all evidence that the earth is a ball. These fairies somehow make the earth APPEAR to be flat -- from the solar rays example, to the flatness of water, to the ability to see FAR beyond what we should be able to see on a 7,926 mile diameter ball earth. Neil Degrasse Tyson emotionally stated on video that you can't see the curvature from the Red Bull jump -- which was almost in outer space -- "you can't see the curve on a basketball when you're 1 millimeter above it" -- but then they turn around and talk about visible curvature effects AT GROUND LEVEL such as when you have shadows from mountains darkening clouds, ships disappearing in the distance, or a row of pylons going out to sea. The curvature comes and goes, as is convenient for their narrative.
Sorry, but this Emperor doesn't have any clothes on at all, and I'm going to say it loud.
-
Marion seems to be in a near-panic about this.
Some things can be very hard to accept, especially in a world filled to the brim with people whose slumber is so very deep.
-
Is there anyone here on CI, who defends FE and is decidedly shunning communicatio in sacris with all Novus Ordo hierarchy and disciples?
Yes. Your theory is nonsense.
-
Why do you think so? Why parallel? The rays come from the sun and go straight to various locations on the flat or globe earth. Isn't it undisputed, that they start from the sun, which is at least several thousand miles away (flat earth) or many more (globe earth), and which appears to be a relatively small spot at the heaven, and from there they lead here to where I am, and also miles away from me, in front, to my left, to my right, and so forth?
Whatever the distance of the sun, the rays come from where the sun is seen on the sky (also on the image) and they lead to places on earth, which are illuminated by the sun at that time. And that's what the images show. Nothing else.
I don't get involved in these discussions, but this seems pretty basic and makes sense. I don't get the big deal of the photo.
-
Why do you think so? Why parallel? The rays come from the sun and go straight to various locations on the flat or globe earth.
They should be parallel due to the purported size and distance of the sun. In fact, that is the entire premise of the famed Eratosthenes experiment (that globers constantly promote as proof for globe earth).
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_sunlight_parallel.html
-
Take a piece of paper.
Draw the sun, and the earth, one at each end.
Draw 2 lines -- one from the sun to the day/night terminator (dawn) at one end of the earth, then another line to the terminator (dusk) at the other end.
If you draw it TO SCALE, think about how shallow that angle is going to be. The 2 lines are going to be virtually parallel at those kind of distances. You're not going to get a near-180 degree "fan" of sun's rays, headed for different points on earth, visible from a point ON THE GROUND on earth. Not possible. How much can a person see at once, standing on the surface? Maybe 20 miles squared? 30 miles squared?
From earth, all the rays came from the same place and are heading to the same place. Again, we're talking about 93 million miles. The distance from dawn to dusk on one side of the earth is what, 7000 miles? 7000 miles is 0.000075269 the distance from the earth to the sun.
Those numbers are too big for human beings to imagine, so let's put it this way: if you scale those distances down, so that the Sun is 7,000 miles away, the earth would only be 0.53 miles in diameter!
Someone get out a calculator and calculate the angle that would make -- certainly nothing visible with the naked eye. And look at my photo in the OP -- that thing is at least 120-140 degrees from one side to the other.
Go get some graph paper with 7,000 squares on one axis. Put the earth at one end, and the Sun at the other. Now make the earth ONE HALF A SQUARE LARGE, and do your calculations. Like I said, all the lines would be near parallel -- especially on a small, 20 mile square patch of land that a person can view from the surface.
-
Imagine if I had a really powerful squirt gun, with laser-like focus. Pretend such a thing existed.
Say we stood 1,000 feet apart. It would be very difficult for me, so far away, to carefully hit your left shoulder and then your right shoulder. For me, I'd be aiming pretty much the same place. The same "angle".
Now imagine 5,000 feet, or 10,000 feet away. If I varied the aim of my hose/squirtgun by as much as a bee's stinger, it would swing wide of you by 5 feet in either direction.
Now imagine 93 million miles.
Seriously, use your brain.
-
So the one glober argument I find online is that it's due to "atmospheric scattering". Problem however is that the rays are scattered only around an axis that so happens to be right beneath where the sun appears to be. Odds of that happening are a trillion to one, that it would only scatter right there. There should be atmospheric scattering all over the place, but this phenomenon is only seen underneath where the sun is. Otherwise, I should be able to see the sun, say, on my left, and then turn to the right and occasionally see the same "scattering" phenomenon over there. But this phenomenon always happens to be right under the sun.
Then there's that high-altitude balloon footage showing a clear hotspot underneath where the sun is. So the one argument presented here was reflection. Same problem applies there. This reflection just so happens to be directly underneath where the sun appears to be ... and nowhere else. Otherwise you'd be able to see random "hotspots" all over the place, not just always right beneath where the sun appears in the sky. There is an optical phenomenon out there where if you see the sun lower to the horizon, you can see a trail of light coming across the water directly to your position. It's not really there, but it has to do with the light hitting your eye at that angle. But this cannot explain the hotspot, because the hotspot is directly under the sun and doesn't come toward you (it's not an issue of it hitting your eye). And if you look at those pictures, you can gradually see the tops of the clouds getting dimmer and dimmer as you look farther away from the hotspot. With the aforementioned phenomenon, you only see the light beams that appear to be coming toward you and your eyes, and you never see the same ray of light going somewhere else.
Same applies to the old "refraction" argument with regard to videos demonstrating that we can "see too far". Magically the refraction would have to perfectly follow the curvature of the earth, over and over again on the thousands of pictures that have demonstrated this phenomenon. Then of course, the laser distance experiment was performed by Dr. John D BI-DIRECTIONALLY from many miles away. In order for this refraction to follow the curvature of the earth, it would have to encounter a continually increasing density gradient (in the same layer of atmosphere by the way). But then in the other direction, the beam would encounter a continually DEcreasing density gradient and would cause the light to refract upward and not be visible. But the laser was seen from many miles away ... in BOTH directions.
Of course, whenever flat earthers show these pictures and videos, the globers throw out the magic deus ex machina term "refraction". Yet when they find one video or photo of something appearing to be cut off by the water line, they throw it out there as proof. Suddenly refraction goes away and couldn't possibly have been a factor. Also, the globers never give numbers. They don't indicate where they are, how far from the object, what the atmospheric conditions are, what type of photo/video equipment they're using (even these have limits depending on what you're using) ... all of which are critical to assessing what it is that you're actually seeing. And of course the other deus ex machina argument is "gravity" that magical force which drags everything around the planet at 1,000 MPH (at the equator) as if they were attached to the earth by an iron rod but then has no effect on airplanes trying to, say, land on north-south runways, or having to consume extra fuel when headed West (because they'd be swimming upstream). So this magical force, gravity, has one effect when they need it to and then the opposite effect when it's inconvenient.
If the earth were rotating West to East, then you would expect the jetstreams and winds to move in the opposite direction, but they don't. So the explanation for that is that these winds actually move faster than the earth rotates, OK, so winds in excess of 1000 MPH, which is 3 times higher than the windspeed of the fastest tornado ever recorded. So planes travelling East to West would encounter headwinds of 1,000 MPH plus. Everybody knows a plane cannot fly under those conditions.
One could go on and on for hours with the various proofs for Flat Earth, and not the least of them is the fact that globers tend to be dishonest. That means that they're clinging to their belief system for psychological reasons rather than letting themselves follow the evidence. Anything that might SEEM to support their position they hold onto with an iron clenched fist, but they don't look at it critically.
I do this with various issues, a thought experiment. I imagine that I am completely agnostic and don't know and don't care one way or the other. Then I put myself in the position of having to debate each side. I would pretend that I'm trying to PROVE the globe side first, then the FE side. I've done this with evolution, with SVism & RR, with BoD and other subjects. I remind myself that I'm only seeking the truth, whatever it is. When I put myself in that mindset, I find that I cannot convincingly argue the Globe position. [Of course, due to NASA's total lack of credibility, I consider them inadmissible as evidence.] I did similar with this phenomenon depicted in Matthew's picture. I pretend that I'm a glober and that I am trying to explain this phenomenon arguing against a Flat Earther. I can't think of any credible explanation for it. I thought, well, perhaps it's happening due to an opening in the clouds that's scattering the light. But I can't prove this and don't find it convincing. Why does it only ever happen right beneath where the suns happens to be? If I were a glober clinging to my position, I'd throw something out there LIKE that without caring whether it's convincing at all ... because I'd already be pre-convinced of the globe. In order to honestly pursue the truth of this issue, we have to stop doing that.
That guy who runs the Taboo Conspiracy FE website talks about how he came around. He was initially trying to debunk FE and started a thread, and he noticed that the glober arguments were dishonest, facile, rooted in confirmation bias, and clearly coming from people who had already made up their minds. So he started anti-FE and became FE. That's the same place I was in and the same place Matthew started from. Matthew actually buried FE into one of the ghetto sub-fora so the threads would not be visible. But I kept digging and digging, and this is where I ended up. I still recall the day that I became 100% certain that the earth is flat, and it was a bit jarring and shocking to me. We've all been so thoroughly programmed about this issue that it's hard to accept and downright shocking. And that's a programming that many pro-globe folks here on this thread are incapable of breaking through.
I'd like to have a real debate, so I try to debate myself. I take both sides of the issue. I was used to this because I was on the debate team in both High School and college. Often you had a topic for each debate season, and you would have to argue both sides, randomly. I think that in future posts, I will lay out a point of "evidence" and present BOTH sides of the issue and explain why I find one more convincing than the other. I will therefore anticipate a lot of the objections up front instead of just having them repeatedly thrown out there.
-
What I'm describing above is none other than the scholastic method, where you lay out the objections ahead of time and then try to rebut them. I'll start a sample thread later to show how this works, instead of the FEs and GEs just going at it. I'll start with "Flat Earth Debate: Seeing too far?" I'll lay out the arguments from both sides as convincingly as possible to give each side a fair shake, and then see how they can be rebutted by the other side, as convincingly as possible, and draw a conclusion.
-
Authority of The R C Church (Pope Alex VI, Columbus, Isabella, ) determined 500 yrs ago that E is globe. End of story
Thank you Marion
:incense:
-
Authority of The R C Church (Pope Alex VI, Columbus, Isabella, ) determined 500 yrs ago that E is globe. End of story
Yes, I've seen the Bugs Bunny episode myself -- the one where Columbus is arguing the earth is round "like an orange" and the king is arguing it is flat "like a pancake". I haven't seen that episode for a few decades...
It's a big canard though. Columbus sailing "around" the earth -- always E-W and never N-S -- doesn't prove globe earth at all.
Did you go to Public School?
I bet you believe that the cινιℓ ωαr was all about "slavery vs. no slavery" as well. Ha! That was maybe 15% of the reason for the cινιℓ ωαr.
-
Just to add my two cents, this is of course well examined and explained on the globe earth.
These are called crepuscular rays (sometimes also "god rays"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunbeam#Crepuscular_rays
(https://i.imgur.com/oyIt4Lz.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Crepuscular_Rays%2C_India.JPG/1280px-Crepuscular_Rays%2C_India.JPG)
Look at the vertical angle of these rays, it looks like the Sun is actually going down below the mountain! Even if it wasn't yet physically below the horizontal plane of the observer, this is exactly what perspective does, and that also explains your image, Matthew. What you did was go out there trying to find evidence for FE. You came across crepuscular rays without knowing what they are and what their explanation is, yet tried to use it as FE evidence. This is called an argument from ignorance.
There are also anti-crepuscular rays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticrepuscular_rays
-
Authority of The R C Church (Pope Alex VI, Columbus, Isabella, ) determined 500 yrs ago that E is globe. End of story
Thank you Marion
:incense:
:facepalm:
-
Just to add my two cents, this is of course well examined and explained on the globe earth.
These are called crepuscular rays (sometimes also "god rays"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunbeam#Crepuscular_rays
There are also anti-crepuscular rays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticrepuscular_rays
Neither crepuscular nor anticrepuscular rays describe Matthew's picture. Just read the definitions.
I dispute that they are well examined and explained. All I see are names given to things and gratuitous assertions (theories presented as fact, as is the tendency of modern science in general).
As mentioned before, perspective plays a role when the light is coming TOWARD you (which is the explanation given for the crepuscular rays because the sun has to be low on the horizon.
-
Neither crepuscular nor anticrepuscular rays describe Matthew's picture. Just read the definitions.
I dispute that they are well examined and explained. All I see are names given to things and gratuitous assertions (theories presented as fact, as is the tendency of modern science in general).
As mentioned before, perspective plays a role when the light is coming TOWARD you (which is the explanation given for the crepuscular rays because the sun has to be low on the horizon.
You're right, these are just standard sunbeams which shine through the clouds. A huge Sun at 93 million miles would still produce this result. Rays from different directions hit the cloud layer and pass through a small opening. Perspective makes them appear to converge to a close local point, just as railroad tracks make it seem as if they converged right at the horizon, which they obviously don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunbeam
-
Buy a telescope, look at the other planets of our solar system, and see if you can find one that is not spherical in shape.
You can also fly to either Quito, Ecuador and Nairobi, Kenya (cities on the equator) and you'll see Polaris on the northern horizon. Cape Town, South Africa and Melbourne, Australia are south of the equator. Fly to either and you won't see Polaris at all.
There is also the fact that the force of gravity depends upon the distance between two interacting objects, and the only three-dimensional object you can make with a single distance is a sphere.
There is also the very high probability that no one here is a physicist, cosmologist, or even any type of natural scientist so these discussions are unlikely to be resolved due to the nature of the persons engaging in them.
-
There is also the very high probability that no one here is a physicist, cosmologist, or even any type of natural scientist so these discussions are unlikely to be resolved due to the nature of the persons engaging in them.
An interesting "appeal to authority" considering the article you posted regarding the issue an heretical Roman Pontiff, etc.
-
An interesting "appeal to authority" considering the article you posted regarding the issue an heretical Roman Pontiff, etc.
My comment was more an observation than an appeal. Since many of the commentators on this topic (seemingly) lack the pre-requisite training (formal or otherwise) necessary to discuss the scientific intricacies and complexities intrinsically associated with the subject matter, it is unlikely to be resolved definitively one way or another to everyone’s satisfaction.
The lack of individual thorough scientific knowledge will naturally lead to technical misunderstandings, jargonistic exploitations, sophistry, and confusion by those more versed on the issue.
-
Buy a telescope, look at the other planets of our solar system, and see if you can find one that is not spherical in shape.
Lame. You can't tell whether something is spherical by looking at it.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=404885936925227 -- start at the 2-minute mark.
And even if were to turn out that the bodies moving around the earth are spherical, that doesn't address the shape of the earth. You're begging the question regarding the nature of the "solar system".
-
You can also fly to either Quito, Ecuador and Nairobi, Kenya (cities on the equator) and you'll see Polaris on the northern horizon. Cape Town, South Africa and Melbourne, Australia are south of the equator. Fly to either and you won't see Polaris at all.
There is also the fact that the force of gravity depends upon the distance between two interacting objects, and the only three-dimensional object you can make with a single distance is a sphere.
You've joined the discussion late and these are already thoroughly debunked. "Gravity" is unproven, and whether you should be able to see polaris depends on how far polaris actually is from the earth.
We're allegedly hurtling through space at several million miles per hour, and yet Polaris hasn't moved an inch in centuries and all the other stars move around it. Earth (allegedly) rotates at 1,000 MPH (at the equator), the it's moving 66,600 MPH around the sun. Our Solar System is moving at about 450,000 MPH around our galaxy, ad the galaxy itself is moving 1.3 million MPH through the universe. Yet the positions of the stars haven't changed for centuries.
Equally absurd is the notion that we've seen the same face of the moon for centuries. Its rotation would have to be synchronized with its revolution around the earth to the second. If it were even a second off, it would change over the course of years and decades. And this as scientists allege that it's moving away from the earth ... which means that it would have to slightly speed up its rotation even as it drifts away.
Then the moon just so happens to be 400x smaller and at the same time 400x closer than the sun, allowing for eclipses as we experience them.
-
My comment was more an observation than an appeal. Since many of the commentators on this topic (seemingly) lack the pre-requisite training (formal or otherwise) necessary to discuss the scientific intricacies and complexities intrinsically associated with the subject matter, it is unlikely to be resolved definitively one way or another to everyone’s satisfaction.
The lack of individual thorough scientific knowledge will naturally lead to technical misunderstandings, jargonistic exploitations, sophistry, and confusion by those more versed on the issue.
Not true. There are in fact scientists who hold that the earth is flat, such as Dr. John D from Bristol in England, who actually specializes in spectromery and has conducted rigorous scientific experiments demonstrating the flatness of the earth.
Nevertheless, there are issues that can be investigated by any thinking person. But the reason that "everyone's satisfaction" cannot be met is largely due to the fact that the globers are already dogmatically pre-convinced and will not honestly and objectively engage in the matter. Most FE are open to any REAL evidence that might be brought to bear. And this matter could be easily put to bed by the scientific establishment by, say, chartering a military aircraft and circuмnavigating Antarctica. Bring FE proponents on board and allow them to make the measurements. Similarly, they could have sent a Michelson-Morley apparatus to the moon and determined once and for all whether the earth is in motion and whether Einstein's theories are so much nonsense (invented to explain away Michelson-Morley).
-
Lame. You can't tell whether something is spherical by looking at it.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=404885936925227 -- start at the 2-minute mark.
And even if were to turn out that the bodies moving around the earth are spherical, that doesn't address the shape of the earth. You're begging the question regarding the nature of the "solar system".
Actually, you can. I have a high powered telescope and I clearly saw the spherical nature of the planets I observed.
This isn’t a philosophical question. I am not making a logical argument. The spherical conformity of the planets in our solar system is based on empirical observation and extrapolation using basic principles of Cosmology and Physics.
-
You've joined the discussion late and these are already thoroughly debunked. "Gravity" is unproven, and whether you should be able to see polaris depends on how far polaris actually is from the earth.
We're allegedly hurtling through space at several million miles per hour, and yet Polaris hasn't moved an inch in centuries and all the other stars move around it. Earth (allegedly) rotates at 1,000 MPH (at the equator), the it's moving 66,600 MPH around the sun. Our Solar System is moving at about 450,000 MPH around our galaxy, ad the galaxy itself is moving 1.3 million MPH through the universe. Yet the positions of the stars haven't changed for centuries.
Equally absurd is the notion that we've seen the same face of the moon for centuries. Its rotation would have to be synchronized with its revolution around the earth to the second. If it were even a second off, it would change over the course of years and decades. And this as scientists allege that it's moving away from the earth ... which means that it would have to slightly speed up its rotation even as it drifts away.
Then the moon just so happens to be 400x smaller and at the same time 400x closer than the sun, allowing for eclipses as we experience them.
The scientific evidence for gravity is so overwhelming that to deny it is to deny the possibility of any kind of scientific knowledge.
As for the rest of your post, it suffices to say that you are arguing from a “sense” perspective which is worthless in this discussion.
-
Not true. There are in fact scientists who hold that the earth is flat, such as Dr. John D from Bristol in England, who actually specializes in spectromery and has conducted rigorous scientific experiments demonstrating the flatness of the earth.
Nevertheless, there are issues that can be investigated by any thinking person. But the reason that "everyone's satisfaction" cannot be met is largely due to the fact that the globers are already dogmatically pre-convinced and will not honestly and objectively engage in the matter. Most FE are open to any REAL evidence that might be brought to bear. And this matter could be easily put to bed by the scientific establishment by, say, chartering a military aircraft and circuмnavigating Antarctica. Bring FE proponents on board and allow them to make the measurements. Similarly, they could have sent a Michelson-Morley apparatus to the moon and determined once and for all whether the earth is in motion and whether Einstein's theories are so much nonsense (invented to explain away Michelson-Morley).
“Dr.” John D from Bristol is a pseudonym. Moreover, his credentials are suspect and his work shoddy amateurish pseudoscience.
Anything less than putting you on a spaceship and taking you out to orbit to see with your eyes that the earth is a globe will not convince you.
-
Anything less than putting you on a spaceship and taking you out to orbit to see with your eyes that the earth is a globe will not convince you.
I don't think that either side can really be proven, but we can still debate and respect the opinion of others. After all, the Church has not ruled on the subject.
-
I don't think that either side can really be proven, but we can still debate and respect the opinion of others. After all, the Church has not ruled on the subject.
I think that the earth is a sphere can be proven in numerous undeniable ways. As for respecting the opinion of those who hold that the earth is flat, one can respect the person, but not the error.
-
I think that the earth is a sphere can be proven in numerous undeniable ways.
Are you a cosmologist, astrophysicist, etc? Nope. I don't care, but you apparently believe we should.
-
Since many of the commentators on this topic (seemingly) lack the pre-requisite training (formal or otherwise) necessary to discuss the scientific intricacies and complexities intrinsically associated with the subject matter, it is unlikely to be resolved definitively one way or another to everyone’s satisfaction.
The lack of individual thorough scientific knowledge will naturally lead to technical misunderstandings, jargonistic exploitations, sophistry, and confusion by those more versed on the issue.
This^^^
Classic pseudo-intellectual douche-baggery, bro.
-
This^^^
Classic pseudo-intellectual douche-baggery, bro.
I love you too.
-
Are you a cosmologist, astrophysicist, etc? Nope. I don't care, but you apparently believe we should.
Neither. I am but a lowly and humble Chemist who had some formal educational experience in Physics with a minor in pseudo-intellectual “douche baggery.”
-
MO is that debating the FE/ DOG GEO F's is hopeless. Thanks for your posts but go get some fresh air/ exercise rather than waste time w/ them...:popcorn:
-
I think that the earth is a sphere can be proven in numerous undeniable ways. As for respecting the opinion of those who hold that the earth is flat, one can respect the person, but not the error.
Yes, it COULD be proven in undeniable ways. But it hasn’t been. Why? This is part of the equation, the massive amounts of lies and fraud and dishonesty coming from the globe earth quarters. There’s CLEARLY a psychological and emotional attachment here to the globe shape of the earth. That too is part of the equation.
If the globers had objectively undeniable proof and could present it impassionately, they might actually be persuasive. But we get nothing but attacks and insults from you.
You’re clearly not interested in the truth ... unless it’s the truth you want to believe. That is obvious to all of us FEs and hurts your cause.
Then many of the things you claim as proofs are either hoaxes and frauds. Why? And most of what’s left is not actually proof ... but you all accept them as such because you want to. It’s your confirmation bias calling things proof when they are not proofs and sometimes even hoaxes.
Your petty childish petulant arrogant promotion of your position actually hurts your cause to those of us trying to find the truth, whatever that might be.
That one leading FE says he was largely persuaded of FE due to the globers’ dishonesty and lies.
Dankward and Marion have presented one lame “proof” after another that’s easily debunked, hoping that if they throw enough excrement at the wall, some of it might stick. And they regularly hurl insults and personal attacks against the FE folks.
You disqualify yourselves from any rational debate about this question and due to your obvious childish emotional attachment to ball earth, you’ll largely be ignored.
-
MO is that debating the FE/ DOG GEO F's is hopeless. Thanks for your posts but go get some fresh air/ exercise rather than waste time w/ them...:popcorn:
See, this is the type or arrogance coming from the globe earth side.
-
You've joined the discussion late and these are already thoroughly debunked. "Gravity" is unproven, and whether you should be able to see polaris depends on how far polaris actually is from the earth.
We're allegedly hurtling through space at several million miles per hour, and yet Polaris hasn't moved an inch in centuries and all the other stars move around it. Earth (allegedly) rotates at 1,000 MPH (at the equator), the it's moving 66,600 MPH around the sun. Our Solar System is moving at about 450,000 MPH around our galaxy, ad the galaxy itself is moving 1.3 million MPH through the universe. Yet the positions of the stars haven't changed for centuries.
Equally absurd is the notion that we've seen the same face of the moon for centuries. Its rotation would have to be synchronized with its revolution around the earth to the second. If it were even a second off, it would change over the course of years and decades. And this as scientists allege that it's moving away from the earth ... which means that it would have to slightly speed up its rotation even as it drifts away.
Then the moon just so happens to be 400x smaller and at the same time 400x closer than the sun, allowing for eclipses as we experience them.
To which Jupiter (nice pagan god name, BTW) responded:
The scientific evidence for gravity is so overwhelming that to deny it is to deny the possibility of any kind of scientific knowledge.
As for the rest of your post, it suffices to say that you are arguing from a “sense” perspective which is worthless in this discussion.
Basically, I could rephrase his response thusly:
The theory of Gravity is totally true because it has to be, I said so, etc.
Your arguments are invalid.
Notably absent from Jupiter's response:
Why Polaris doesn't move, even over the centuries, when it should be moving over months and years AT LEAST.
Why the cosmic coincidences exist, impossible but there they are. The moon is exactly the right distance to "appear" the same size as the sun.
The moon orbits the earth perfectly timed down to the SECOND, such that it doesn't drift even by 1 second over the years and centuries. If it did, we'd see new parts of the moon over time.
The moon is moving further away from the earth, but somehow is picking up more orbital speed to make up for it. Because again, we don't observe ANY drift in what part of the moon we can see. Don't we have high-resolution telescopes that could pick up the smallest amount of "dark side" becoming part of the "light side"?
Crickets.
-
It's almost amusing that globers think flat earthers will suddenly quit being rational because they were booed.
-
Yes, it COULD be proven in undeniable ways. But it hasn’t been. Why? This is part of the equation, the massive amounts of lies and fraud and dishonesty coming from the globe earth quarters. There’s CLEARLY a psychological and emotional attachment here to the globe shape of the earth. That too is part of the equation.
If the globers had objectively undeniable proof and could present it impassionately, they might actually be persuasive. But we get nothing but attacks and insults from you.
You’re clearly not interested in the truth ... unless it’s the truth you want to believe. That is obvious to all of us FEs and hurts your cause.
Then many of the things you claim as proofs are either hoaxes and frauds. Why? And most of what’s left is not actually proof ... but you all accept them as such because you want to. It’s your confirmation bias calling things proof when they are not proofs and sometimes even hoaxes.
Your petty childish petulant arrogant promotion of your position actually hurts your cause to those of us trying to find the truth, whatever that might be.
That one leading FE says he was largely persuaded of FE due to the globers’ dishonesty and lies.
Dankward and Marion have presented one lame “proof” after another that’s easily debunked, hoping that if they throw enough excrement at the wall, some of it might stick. And they regularly hurl insults and personal attacks against the FE folks.
You disqualify yourselves from any rational debate about this question and due to your obvious childish emotional attachment to ball earth, you’ll largely be ignored.
It has been proven quite clearly on a number of occasions by more than one member here, but you refuse to accept any rational argument because your psychological projection is, ironically, indicative of the deeper issues that this topic means for you and the other gentlemen in this discussion. Your attachment is not to a “flat” earth, it’s to something much more interesting. I’ve already analyzed this feature of many individuals who hold to this absurd theory at an earlier post so I won’t bother to repeat it entirely.
You are clearly bothered by what you perceive to be personal attacks and insults yet you and your fellow supporters engage in the same manner of debate.
You have presented nothing worthy of note and you continue to engage in ever more skeptical attacks on everything foundational to modern science because you reject much more than a spherical earth. You reject the modern world. I’ve looked at your posting history and everything about you seems to confirm this observation.
Since you seemingly reject the entire scientific corpus and instead choose to hypothesize your way into a Laudislausian individualism in which your subjective perspectives are the rule from which you extrapolate your conclusions, arguments presented to you will require building a foundational ground that takes much time to cultivate and communicate. Let it be so.
-
Why Polaris doesn't move, even over the centuries, when it should be moving over months and years AT LEAST.
Why the cosmic coincidences exist, impossible but there they are. The moon is exactly the right distance to "appear" the same size as the sun.
The moon orbits the earth perfectly timed down to the SECOND, such that it doesn't drift even by 1 second over the years and centuries. If it did, we'd see new parts of the moon over time.
The moon is moving further away from the earth, but somehow is picking up more orbital speed to make up for it. Because again, we don't observe ANY drift in what part of the moon we can see. Don't we have high-resolution telescopes that could pick up the smallest amount of "dark side" becoming part of the "light side"?
Crickets.
“Polaris is very distant from Earth, and located in a position very near Earth's north celestial pole.
The Earth rotates once a day on its axis which is an imaginary line that passes through Earth from its north pole to its south pole. If that imaginary line — the axis — is projected into space above the north pole, it points to Earth's north celestial pole. As the Earth spins on its axis, it also “spins around” the north celestial pole. Polaris, located almost exactly at the north celestial pole, the center of spin, stays in the same place, while stars farther away from the north celestial pole can be seen to move in a wider circle around Polaris as viewed from Earth during its daily rotation.
Polaris actually lies just a short distance away from where Earth's axis points. Polaris is located about 1 degree off to the side of the north celestial pole, so Polaris does move a little, tracing a very small arc in the night sky, around which the other visible stars make wider circles.”
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/skytellers/polaris/
-
It has been proven quite clearly on a number of occasions by more than one member here, but you refuse to accept any rational argument because your psychological projection is, ironically, indicative of the deeper issues that this topic means for you and the other gentlemen in this discussion. Your attachment is not to a “flat” earth, it’s to something much more interesting. I’ve already analyzed this feature of many individuals who hold to this absurd theory at an earlier post so I won’t bother to repeat it entirely.
You are clearly bothered by what you perceive to be personal attacks and insults yet you and your fellow supporters engage in the same manner of debate.
You have presented nothing worthy of note and you continue to engage in ever more skeptical attacks on everything foundational to modern science because you reject much more than a spherical earth. You reject the modern world. I’ve looked at your posting history and everything about you seems to confirm this observation.
Since you seemingly reject the entire scientific corpus and instead choose to hypothesize your way into a Laudislausian individualism in which your subjective perspectives are the rule from which you extrapolate your conclusions, arguments presented to you will require building a foundational ground that takes much time to cultivate and communicate. Let it be so.
Flat earthers are never concerned about attacks on their person. They know all sciences, math, scripture, saints and reason prove earth is not a globe. The "body of evidence" for the globe is dead. Every bit of it is a contradiction. It is also because globe earthers refuse to discuss the elephant in the room, that round earth is a contradiction and makes no sense, is promoted by pagan globalists for profit and control, that flat earthers will continue to deny it.
-
“Polaris is very distant from Earth, and located in a position very near Earth's north celestial pole.
Not far enough away to explain why it hasn't moved an inch as we travel at 2 million MPH through the universe. At that rate, our angle to it would change enough to prevent it from being locked in above the north rotational axis.
Airy's "Failure" proved that the earth does not move but that the stars move in relation to the earth.
-
Not far enough away to explain why it hasn't moved an inch as we travel at 2 million MPH through the universe. At that rate, our angle to it would change enough to prevent it from being locked in above the north rotational axis.
Airy's "Failure" proved that the earth does not move but that the stars move in relation to the earth.
Modern science also claims the earth is moving 4 different ways simultaneously. Supposedly earth is orbiting, rotating, exploding outward from the Big Bang, and wobbling on it's axis. That Polaris could remain stationary in relation to earth with all that movement is beyond ridiculous.
-
Modern science also claims the earth is moving 4 different ways simultaneously. Supposedly earth is orbiting, rotating, exploding outward from the Big Bang, and wobbling on it's axis. That Polaris could remain stationary in relation to earth with all that movement is beyond ridiculous.
Right, and somehow with all this movement ... everything stays on the same plane as we hurtle through the universe. If there were even a bit of an angle tilt, not just to the earth, but to the solar system or to the galaxy, or anything, that would cause the position of Polaris to shift. I find that absurd. We've have to remain on the SAME PLANE with no change of angle in relation to Polaris. How is that not ludicrous?
-
Right, and somehow with all this movement ... everything stays on the same plane as we hurtle through the universe. If there were even a bit of an angle tilt, not just to the earth, but to the solar system or to the galaxy, or anything, that would cause the position of Polaris to shift. I find that absurd. We've have to remain on the SAME PLANE with no change of angle in relation to Polaris. How is that not ludicrous?
The more ludicrous the concept, the more globers attempt to manufacture ways to shore up the narrative. I have yet to see any explanation whatsoever for Polaris remaining stationary while earth is pirouetting around in space like a whirling dervish. I can't even imagine what they might come up with but it's got to be a doozy.
-
The more ludicrous the concept, the more globers attempt to manufacture ways to shore up the narrative. I have yet to see any explanation whatsoever for Polaris remaining stationary while earth is pirouetting around in space like a whirling dervish. I can't even imagine what they might come up with but it's got to be a doozy.
1. Two words: Occam's Razor.
2. For someone determined to believe, any lame explanation will do.
It's a sad fact of human nature.
Picture a cult with 100% white people. The cult leader is black. One of the cult members, a white woman (married to a white man) gives birth to a Mulatto baby.
The cult leader exclaims "It's a miracle!" and the whole cult believes him -- rather than the much more obvious and simpler explanation: the woman committed adultery with the cult leader.
Believe it or not, this scenario is EMINENTLY realistic, based on countless anecdotes and evidence from human history. Once people are brainwashed, they will believe LITERALLY ANYTHING from their masters -- even facts that contradict what they were taught BY THAT SAME MASTER the day before! It sounds crazy, but it's absolutely true. Orwell understood this, and put it into 1984. For example, that one dramatic scene I'm fond of quoting.
P.S. For the nerds out there, this very thing happened in an episode of DS9. There was a Cardassian cult leader, Bajoran cult members, and one of the Bajoran women gave birth to a Cardiassian-Bajoran hybrid baby. The cult leader said it was a sign, a miracle.
-
1. Two words: Occam's Razor.
2. For someone determined to believe, any lame explanation will do.
It's a sad fact of human nature.
Picture a cult with 100% white people. The cult leader is black. One of the cult members, a white woman (married to a white man) gives birth to a Mulatto baby.
The cult leader exclaims "It's a miracle!" and the whole cult believes him -- rather than the much more obvious and simpler explanation: the woman committed adultery with the cult leader.
Believe it or not, this scenario is EMINENTLY realistic, based on countless anecdotes and evidence from human history. Once people are brainwashed, they will believe LITERALLY ANYTHING from their masters -- even facts that contradict what they were taught BY THAT SAME MASTER the day before! It sounds crazy, but it's absolutely true. Orwell understood this, and put it into 1984. For example, that one dramatic scene I'm fond of quoting.
P.S. For the nerds out there, this very thing happened in an episode of DS9. There was a Cardassian cult leader, Bajoran cult members, and one of the Bajoran women gave birth to a Cardiassian-Bajoran hybrid baby. The cult leader said it was a sign, a miracle.
Yea, we were warned:
2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accuмulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
-
I love you too.
See, you CAN use words with only ONE syllable. Try it more often.
Godspeed, my friend.
-
I am but a lowly and humble Chemist who had some formal educational experience in Physics with a minor in pseudo-intellectual “douche baggery.”
Magna cuм laude within your minor? Totally kidding, bro.
-
“Polaris is very distant from Earth, and located in a position very near Earth's north celestial pole.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/skytellers/polaris/
Globe vs. FE aside, do you subscribe to geo-centrism, or something demonstrably heretical?
-
Yea, we were warned:
2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accuмulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
I agree with you about the appropriateness of the quote --
But DOUAY RHEIMS, please.
-
I trust MY OWN SENSES.
You should trust your own senses and watch this video. This completely contradicts the flat-earth model. The objection by flat-earthers that the sun is "disappearing into the distance" is absurd. It then becomes globers trusting their senses, while flat-earthers have to come up with strange theories to explain how the Sun is not going BELOW the horizon. If the Sun was simply going further away, it would be shrinking and getting closer to the horizon, but never going under it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuV3roqT7j0&t=27s
(https://i.imgur.com/8YuMaUo.png)
-
If the Sun was simply going further away, it would be shrinking and getting closer to the horizon, but never going under it.
False. When it gets far enough away it appears to descend into the horizon. And the size of the sun indicates some kind of atmospheric magnification There are plenty of videos that show the exact opposite, with the sun shrinking to a very small size (which shouldn't happen when it's 93 million miles away) and also where you zoom in and you CAN see that it's still above the horizon. And one video that show the sun appearing to be cut in half and then when zoomed in suddenly is still above the horizon ... debunks your assertion that this cannot be the result of perspective and line of sight.
See this is the problem with you globers. You find a video that appears to back your preconceive idea and then you cling to it through confirmation bias. You ignore the videos that show the opposite.
-
Flat Earthers can demonstrate (with examples) where the sun CAN appear to be cut in half by the horizon while it's really still above it.
Can Globe Earthers explain why in many videos the sun shrinks? Atmospheric moisture is not known to shrink objects, but rather to magnify them.
-
Here's one where the sun appears to shrink and then fade away into the horizon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXzclB00K-k
Then there's this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5w8EetFwGo
-
Here are some great pictures similar to Matthew's. In some of these, you can see the rays touching down on the water, showing that they go in all directions around the axis just below the sun, and are not merely the effect of perspective coming TOWARD you. Some of these are moving the OTHER way.
https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/visual-proof-of-the-close-flat-earth-sun-nasa-is-lying/
(https://flatearthscienceandbible.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_7263.jpeg?w=474&zoom=2)
(https://flatearthscienceandbible.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_8221.jpeg?w=473&zoom=2)
These are radiating through the clouds and outward from the central axis whereas they should just all go straight down.
-
These are radiating through the clouds and outward from the central axis whereas they should just all go straight down.
No, they shouldn't. Neither in a flat earth model where the sun is thousands of miles away, nor in a globe earth model where the sun is millions of miles away. See Replys #2 and #10 (both on page 1).
-
Here's one where the sun appears to shrink and then fade away into the horizon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXzclB00K-k
That is clearly being blocked out by dense cloud. And the camera is very low quality compared to the camera in the video I sent. Find a video like that on a clear night with a high quality camera and I will reassess your point.
(https://i.imgur.com/FOykQ3x.png)(https://i.imgur.com/IJdCMEj.png)
-
No, they shouldn't. Neither in a flat earth model where the sun is thousands of miles away, nor in a globe earth model where the sun is millions of miles away. See Replys #2 and #10 (both on page 1).
I have seen your replies; they're nonsensical.
-
Take a piece of paper.
Draw the sun, and the earth, one at each end.
Draw 2 lines -- one from the sun to the day/night terminator (dawn) at one end of the earth, then another line to the terminator (dusk) at the other end.
If you draw it TO SCALE, think about how shallow that angle is going to be. The 2 lines are going to be virtually parallel at those kind of distances. You're not going to get a near-180 degree "fan" of sun's rays, headed for different points on earth, visible from a point ON THE GROUND on earth. Not possible. How much can a person see at once, standing on the surface? Maybe 20 miles squared? 30 miles squared?
From earth, all the rays came from the same place and are heading to the same place. Again, we're talking about 93 million miles. The distance from dawn to dusk on one side of the earth is what, 7000 miles? 7000 miles is 0.000075269 the distance from the earth to the sun.
No, Matthew, not true what you say: "From earth, all the rays came from the same place and are heading to the same place." Look at your own image! Yes, all rays come from the same place (sun), but they don't head all to the same place. Look at your own image! There are those rays who head to a place on earth some few miles ahead of you on the left, and others head to a place on earth some few miles ahead of you on the right. Some lead to a place seen right on the image, and others left. And this happens as it happens completely independently of the distance of the sun. The sun may be thousands, millions, billions, or zillions of miles away. The result on the image, or as viewed live behind your house, stays the same. From behind your house, looking at the different places where the rays arrive on earth, these places are spread left, right, middle, wherever, completely independent of the distance of the sun, which illuminates all these places.
-
Matthew, imagine a pyramid. Square base, four triangles as sides. Imagine a wire-model, all edges are wires. You look from the bottom. Can you tell the height of the pyramid? No you can't! Whether the height is once, or twice, or a thousand times, or a million times the length of the edge of the square base, you can't tell the difference.
Same thing with the rays. Whether the sun is one mile away (as a naive observer of your image might think) or it is thousands of miles away (like FE-folks say) or millions of miles (like GE-folks say), you can't see the difference.
-
Matthew, imagine a pyramid. Square base, four triangles as sides. Imagine a wire-model, all edges are wires. You look from the bottom. Can you tell the height of the pyramid? No you can't! Whether the height is once, or twice, or a thousand times, or a million times the length of the edge of the square base, you can't tell the difference.
Same thing with the rays. Whether the sun is one mile away (as a naive observer of your image might think) or it is thousands of miles away (like FE-folks say) or millions of miles (like GE-folks say), you can't see the difference.
You absolutely could tell the height of the pyramid, based on the angles of the wires; the higher the pyramid, the greater the angle from the base. If the pyramid were real short, you might even see an acute angle. If it were taller, you'd eventually hit 45 degrees. The taller it gets the closer the angles on the corners of the base will be to 90 degrees.
-
You absolutely could tell the height of the pyramid, based on the angles of the wires; the higher the pyramid, the greater the angle from the base. If the pyramid were real short, you might even see an acute angle. If it were taller, you'd eventually hit 45 degrees. The taller it gets the closer the angles on the corners of the base will be to 90 degrees.
If you look perpendicular from the bottom, you can't.
-
This whole story here is ridiculous without end. If you'd take seriously what you say, why then is the sun thousands of miles away (FE theory) and not just one mile or even less?
-
The sun is not a local point light source, otherwise its angular size would change as it moves. There is no large scale atmospheric magnification going on which would somehow perfectly match the local sun as it moves away. That's a baseless claim, a strawman to try and get around this problem with FE. It is a ridiculous argument, usually "demonstrated" by setting up a magnifying glass and a mockup sun on a table :jester:
(https://i.imgur.com/qSJ5Onr.png)
Left is what sunsets look like, right is what they should look like with a small, local sun:
(https://i.imgur.com/E2KFTap.gif)
And no, this is not cherry picked evidence of one sunset. The Sun is always huge when it sets, except for extremely foggy or cloudy conditions, but we're talking about clear days here.
(https://i.imgur.com/HMJwP8L.png)
That's a huge problem for FE with once again no reasonable explanation to account for these observations.
-
The sun is not a local point light source, otherwise its angular size would change as it moves. There is no large scale atmospheric magnification going on which would somehow perfectly match the local sun as it moves away.
And yet refraction perfectly follows the curvature of the earth, and you take zero account of the pictures where the sun get very small as it sets. Pictures depend upon angles and whether the sun is going directly away from your or not. Again, with your pics, no explanation of where they were taken. When you're way up North during Northern summer the sun has some stranger patterns.
Just more of your confirmation bias. I'll lay out a similar thread to the one I made about seeing too far which deals with the sun issue. "See too far" thread lays out the arguments from both sides and demonstrates that how the FE position is much more persuasive.
There are many pictures which show the sun getting much smaller as it sets, just like your graphic indicates should happen on a Flat Earth. But those are ignored. You find one or two pictures that seem to support your position and slap them out there as proof.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/E2KFTap.gif)
There are numerous pictures and videos showing EXACTLY what's on the right side of this graphic.
-
If you look perpendicular from the bottom, you can't.
What, if you don't look to the side? That's precisely what we're looking at with the sun ray angles.
-
There are numerous pictures and videos showing EXACTLY what's on the right side of this graphic.
I've seen a few of thise in foggy, cloudy, low visibility conditions. We're talking about clear days with good visibility conditions.
You FEs shouldn't focus on those observations that fit your theory, but rather on those that do not. Why are you so keen on cherry picking?