-
So while I definitely do not believe in heliocentrism which is garbage. I do have some questions about non-flat earth geocentrism. I am finding it rather difficult to find content on it online.
- Do the planets move around the sun or the earth? (i commonly see people represent geocentrism as planets around earth but I have seen the idea that the sun is around the earth but the planets around the sun)
- Cassinian Ovals for geocentrism is not talked about much, I can't find any videos on it at all on bitchute. I would prefer NOT to read long papers that will go over my head
- How does non-flat geocentrism reconcile with the Church Fathers on the firmament being solid? The plank stuff seems like a very weak cope to me.
- Can Cassinian Ovals work in the flat earth model?
I personally still believe that there are some stuff that doesn't make sense on a ball earth, but I am trying to focus this thread against heliocentrism and I think there are things that may be reconciled with both geocentric models.
-
Cassini has posted a lot of information on the subject.
Yes, I have a serious problem with redefining the firmament as "space" even with the purported Planck fabric. It's very clear that the Church Fathers unanimously believed in an actual physical firmament (and not "space") that literally kept real, physical waters from flooding the earth, and the Sacred Scriptures characterize the flood that way as well, being caused by a combination of various openings in the physical firmament allowing waters to fall down on the earth, and some openings in the earth that allowed the waters from the Great Deep below to come up. There are some debates among the Church Fathers about the exactly nature of this firmament, but all positions assumed it was a real and physical structure. Perhaps the closest thing I've seen that MIGHT make sense is the notion of a water canopy around the earth that collapsed at the time of the flood, except even that doesn't explain the physical firmament.
So when the Fathers speak of the world being shaped like a sphere, they're referring to the entire world that included the firmament, and not just the surface on which we walked. Some held that it was shaped like a hemisphere, and that it was therefore immobile, and that the heavenly bodies were able somehow to move within this solid hemisphere, speculating that it had an unusual composition, perhaps something like what we call plasma today, where the luminaries could move within it, while it remained stationary. Others held that the luminaries were fixed within the solid firmament but that the entire firmament shaped like a sphere, would revolve around the planet, thereby accounting for the movement. But this does not mean that the surface on which we live is globular. On the bottom side of the sphere was posited to be Sheol (Hell), and the Great Deep. St. Hildegard, a favorite of Dr. Sungenis, held precisely this view, but for some reason Dr. Sungenis was oblivious to the fact that her view of the earth contradicts his NASA ball position.
So, when some of the Fathers refer to a sphere, this is what they have in mind:
(https://ncc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Ancient-Hebrew-cosmos-RGB-2.jpg)
... except that for those Fathers, what's captioned abouve as "Firmament" would actually go all the way around, including underneath, below Sheol and the Great Deep.
So, the Fathers who argued that it was a hemisphere contended that the solid matter of the earth would be more dense than the water, and therefore would settle on the "bottom" of the universe. In that conception, the firmament (and the world) was a hemisphere. St. Augustine held that this was tenable because being "bottom center" could still be understood as "center". Notice that it's taken for granted the the world is the center of the universe. Other Fathers argued that the solid matter of earth could remain in suspension in the middle of the waters (so thus an absolute center) either through the forces cause by the rotation of the waters around it or else through some miraculous (or unexplained) mode of suspension.
But, in the end, they ALL held that there was a SOLID firmament and that beyond the firmament was water, and then beyond the water was the Third Heaven, the one where God dwells.
There were also some who held that the firmament was shaped more like a cone, relying on Sacred Scripture characterizing the firmament like a tent, saying that there had to be some central suspension, like with a tent, that would result in the firmament being shaped more like a teepee. St. Augustine rejected this, referring to the fact that leather can be shaped like a sphere, using the example of a ball.
So there was debate about the firmament, whether it was a sphere or hemisphere, or whether it was shaped more like a cone (teepee tent), whether it was stationary and the luminaries moved within it, where its unusual composition would allow physical objects to move through it, or whether the luminaries were fixed within it and the entire firmament rotated around the earth, including going underneath at night to where Sheol and the Great Deep were. But all the positions assumed a solid or quasi-solid (plasma-like) substance. So those who held the plasma-like theory said that this hypothetical substance was solid enough to keep waters out but fluid enough to allow the luminaries to pass through it. What they didn't consider was whether the luminaries were actual physical objects or could have been more electromagnetic bodies, which could them move around in solid substances.
-
I personally still believe that there are some stuff that doesn't make sense on a ball earth, but I am trying to focus this thread against heliocentrism and I think there are things that may be reconciled with both geocentric models.
I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation from the ball-earth geocentrists who accept the contentions of modern science that the stars are as far as billions of light years away as to how those bodies can move as quickly as they do. If all those stars are rotating around the earth once per day at a distance of billions of light years, they'd have to be moving faster than the speed of light. I might be more open to a geocentric globe theory that holds the planets and stars to be much closer than what "science" claims.
In any case, however, the "see too far" evidence against a globe earth (at least a globe that's the size modern science tells us it is) I find to be absolutely overwhelming. Refraction as an explanation is a complete joke. Perhaps if someone posited another force that would consistently bend light around the globe, such as electromagnetic forces or the like, but refraction is a pathetic deus ex machina they just throw out there. This was conclusively debunked by the 2-way laser experiments of Dr. John D and also his observations (video) of the wind turbines that follow the perfect line of perspective, which would require the refraction index to be perfectly consistent for the entire 11 miles in the range of view.
-
I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation from the ball-earth geocentrists who accept the contentions of modern science that the stars are as far as billions of light years away as to how those bodies can move as quickly as they do. If all those stars are rotating around the earth once per day at a distance of billions of light years, they'd have to be moving faster than the speed of light.
Incredibly immense distances as for example the claim of the universe having a diameter of some 93 billion light years have never been a problem for me and not simply because God can do all things, but because of my understanding of how the mysterious (incredibly dense yet at the same time incredibly fluid) aether is said to carry the heavenly bodies with it. And also by way of the following example or if you will thought experiment: If you could reduce yourself to the size of a theoretical Planck particle and you were in submerged in the outer area of a let's say one yard wide fish bowl as it did one complete rotation once every 24 hours you presumably would not notice or be affected by the motion of the fish bowl. I haven't done the math, but I suspect that by relative comparative speed that Planck particle would actually be traveling faster, perhaps even much faster than a heavenly body lying in the outer limits of our (for the sake of argument) 93 billion light years wide universe.
(Again, I doubt that any of the little minnows in our fish bowl would really notice or be affected by the rotation of the fish bowl.)
-
So while I definitely do not believe in heliocentrism which is garbage. I do have some questions about non-flat earth geocentrism. I am finding it rather difficult to find content on it online.
- Do the planets move around the sun or the earth? (i commonly see people represent geocentrism as planets around earth but I have seen the idea that the sun is around the earth but the planets around the sun)
- Cassinian Ovals for geocentrism is not talked about much, I can't find any videos on it at all on bitchute. I would prefer NOT to read long papers that will go over my head
- How does non-flat geocentrism reconcile with the Church Fathers on the firmament being solid? The plank stuff seems like a very weak cope to me.
- Can Cassinian Ovals work in the flat earth model?
I personally still believe that there are some stuff that doesn't make sense on a ball earth, but I am trying to focus this thread against heliocentrism and I think there are things that may be reconciled with both geocentric models.
Just read your post Anthony. First the order of the universe has to be a geocentric tychonic order. The Sun with its orbiting planets orbiting the Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/8AnIn2T.png)
Astronomy began with sun and planets orbiting in circles. Then Kepler compromised between two calculations and claimed orbits are ellipses. Newton used Kepler's ellipses for his theory of gravity. Cassini the Catholic geocentrist measured the size of the sun every day for a year he found what are called Cassinian ovals. But Newton needed Kepler's ellipses for his heliocentrism. Then, when they tested Kepler's ellipses they found the planets went missing every now and again whereas planets on Cassini's ovals never went astray. In order to keep his heliocentric theory from being falsified, Newton invented his perturbation theory, that is, as each planet moved around the sun, including the Earth, each pulled on the other causing them to move off their elliptical orbits. Now as the Victor writes history, Cassini's orbits were put into the masonic waste paper basket so he is not a well-known astronomer these days.
Cassini's ovals were found to be related with Phi, a shape that is found in spiral galaxies, the human ear, snails, shellfish, leaf-shapes, flower petals, daisies, cauliflowers, broccoli, sunflowers, pineapple fruitlets, pine cones, curved waves, buds on trees, starfish etc. Then it was discovered that Cassini's ovals are found in positive electromagnetic waves. Einstein and physicists for over 100 years have searched for the secret of electromagnetic gravity of the universe. They could not find it with Newton's or Einstein's gravity, but there is is in Cassini's oval. Because they need their heliocentrism to make the Bible's geocentrism redundant they cannot allow Cassini's astronomy to be known.One other thing.
Cassini was also a land-surveyor. He used to measure lands for popes to avoid flooding. When Newton said the Earth had a bulge along its equator due to its having evolved, Cassini decided to measure the Earth and found it was shaped more like a pear. His findings were also rejected to let Newton win.
Cassini's ovals are how the sun and planets and stars move around the Earth the very same. whether the Earth is flat or a sphere.
-
I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation from the ball-earth geocentrists who accept the contentions of modern science that the stars are as far as billions of light years away as to how those bodies can move as quickly as they do. If all those stars are rotating around the earth once per day at a distance of billions of light years, they'd have to be moving faster than the speed of light. I might be more open to a geocentric globe theory that holds the planets and stars to be much closer than what "science" claims.
In Genesis 22:17 and Hebrews 11:12, we find a comparison between the number of stars in the sky with the finite numbers of grains of sand by the seashore.
‘For which cause there sprung even from one (and him as good as dead) as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.’--- Douay Rheims, Epistle of St Paul to the Hebrews, 11:12.
Now who would like to venture a guess at the number of grains of sand in a teacup let alone by the sea shore? Such a contrast teaches us the omnipotence of God by star numbers and indeed by the space needed to accommodate these created bodies; as such numbers would need a universe of immeasurable distances for so many. In his book City of God (Vol. 1, Ch.23), St Augustine, 1200 years before Galileo’s sightings, addressed this very revelation:
‘But as for their numbers, who sees not that the sands do far exceed the stars? Herein you may say they are not comparable in that they are both innumerable. For we cannot think that one can see all the stars, but the more earnestly he beholds them the more he sees: so that we may well suppose that there are some that deceive the sharpest eyes, besides those that arise in other horizons out of sight.’
Geocentric Speed and Time:
The argument, when brought down to modern levels, states: ‘For the furthest stars to rotate around the Earth they would have to be travelling at speeds not possible.’
As Always says above, Since when was there a limit on speeds to God?
‘For the stars of the firmament all race together through the whole circle of the sky at the same speed during twenty-four hours, for those stars which are called planets or wandering stars are hurled with differing movements, some faster, some slower, so that the stars of the firmament seem to represent the bass notes and the planets play a sort of eternal and sweet counterpoint.’--- Cardinal Bellarmine; ‘Ladder of Assent.’
(https://i.imgur.com/BWcFB2y.png)
Then there is the principle that things revolve to a centre. God created the stars and the sun in a rotating-door type universe, where the outer parts of the four doors (of sun and stars) move in rotation around its stationary axis the Earth. The next time you pass through a rotating door, watch its parts all turning together, all rotating simultaneously, while seemingly moving at different speeds yet all complete their turn in the same time. Such a universe would also account for a one universal time clock,
-
If all those stars are rotating around the earth once per day at a distance of billions of light years, they'd have to be moving faster than the speed of light.
.
As far as I know, the idea that it's impossible for anything to go faster than the speed of light was simply asserted by Albert Einstein. Is there any objective proof for this idea?
-
.
As far as I know, the idea that it's impossible for anything to go faster than the speed of light was simply asserted by Albert Einstein. Is there any objective proof for this idea?
I don't disagree. But the thought of larger-sized physical objects moving faster than the speed of light seems to be a problem.
-
Incredibly immense distances as for example the claim of the universe having a diameter of some 93 billion light years have never been a problem for me and not simply because God can do all things, but because of my understanding of how the mysterious (incredibly dense yet at the same time incredibly fluid) aether is said to carry the heavenly bodies with it. And also by way of the following example or if you will thought experiment: If you could reduce yourself to the size of a theoretical Planck particle and you were in submerged in the outer area of a let's say one yard wide fish bowl as it did one complete rotation once every 24 hours you presumably would not notice or be affected by the motion of the fish bowl. I haven't done the math, but I suspect that by relative comparative speed that Planck particle would actually be traveling faster, perhaps even much faster than a heavenly body lying in the outer limits of our (for the sake of argument) 93 billion light years wide universe.
(Again, I doubt that any of the little minnows in our fish bowl would really notice or be affected by the rotation of the fish bowl.)
If (and granted the question of "if" may be a whole other discussion) one were to accept the mainstream consensus of 93 billion light years as being the diameter of the universe and the mainstream consensus of the smallest (at least theoretical anyway) size of a particle in that universe as being Planck size then in our above example the "shrunken" Planck size us in the outer area of the yard wide fishbowl would appear to be moving MUCH faster (relatively speaking) than any one of the heavenly bodies in the outer area of our universe traveling around the Earth once every 24 hours.
The above calculations would be based on the following:
Planck size = 1.0 X 10 raised to the power of negative 35
93 billion light years (diameter of universe) = 1.0 X 10 raised to the power of positive 27
-
Just read your post Anthony. First the order of the universe has to be a geocentric tychonic order. The Sun with its orbiting planets orbiting the Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/8AnIn2T.png)
Cassini decided to measure the Earth and found it was shaped more like a pear. His findings were also rejected to let Newton win.
Cassini's ovals are how the sun and planets and stars move around the Earth the very same. whether the Earth is flat or a sphere.
Very interesting response. Are there any public people who are doing work with cassini ovals? Also by pear earth. Did he mean as a 3D pear and we live on the surface? Or a flat earth but pear shaped?
-
In Genesis 22:17 and Hebrews 11:12, we find a comparison between the number of stars in the sky with the finite numbers of grains of sand by the seashore.
‘For which cause there sprung even from one (and him as good as dead) as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.’--- Douay Rheims, Epistle of St Paul to the Hebrews, 11:12.
Now who would like to venture a guess at the number of grains of sand in a teacup let alone by the sea shore? Such a contrast teaches us the omnipotence of God by star numbers and indeed by the space needed to accommodate these created bodies; as such numbers would need a universe of immeasurable distances for so many. In his book City of God (Vol. 1, Ch.23), St Augustine, 1200 years before Galileo’s sightings, addressed this very revelation:
‘But as for their numbers, who sees not that the sands do far exceed the stars? Herein you may say they are not comparable in that they are both innumerable. For we cannot think that one can see all the stars, but the more earnestly he beholds them the more he sees: so that we may well suppose that there are some that deceive the sharpest eyes, besides those that arise in other horizons out of sight.’
Geocentric Speed and Time:
The argument, when brought down to modern levels, states: ‘For the furthest stars to rotate around the Earth they would have to be travelling at speeds not possible.’
As Always says above, Since when was there a limit on speeds to God?
‘For the stars of the firmament all race together through the whole circle of the sky at the same speed during twenty-four hours, for those stars which are called planets or wandering stars are hurled with differing movements, some faster, some slower, so that the stars of the firmament seem to represent the bass notes and the planets play a sort of eternal and sweet counterpoint.’--- Cardinal Bellarmine; ‘Ladder of Assent.’
(https://i.imgur.com/BWcFB2y.png)
Then there is the principle that things revolve to a centre. God created the stars and the sun in a rotating-door type universe, where the outer parts of the four doors (of sun and stars) move in rotation around its stationary axis the Earth. The next time you pass through a rotating door, watch its parts all turning together, all rotating simultaneously, while seemingly moving at different speeds yet all complete their turn in the same time. Such a universe would also account for a one universal time clock,
I still have doubts on the actual size though. From what i understand the distance of stars we are given are based on assumptions. There is a lot of 'empty space'. Though thanks for the posts. This is an interesting side of geocentrism. And many of the past posts are buried or may be lacking information.
-
As far as I know, the idea that it's impossible for anything to go faster than the speed of light was simply asserted by Albert Einstein. Is there any objective proof for this idea?
No there is no proof, it was invented by Einstein after the Michelson & Morley test that tried to use light prove the Earth orbits the sun at 67,000mph. This test, using the speed of light on their interferometer, failed to find the 30Ksps light fringe but did find one that eventually came down to .9Ksps.
(https://i.imgur.com/Oq9a3dU.png)
So, in fact the test failed to prove an orbiting Earth, but instead proved an inertia of rotation rotates around the Earth, proving within 97% that the universe rotates around the Earth.
Because they did not find their heliocentric orbit of 30Ksps they presented the test to the world as The Michelson and Morley Failure.
‘At noon on 8th, 9th and 10th July, and at around 6pm on 8th, 9th and 12th July, Michelson walked round with the rotating apparatus calling out results while Morley recorded the observations. They were deeply disappointed, for no effect remotely resembling the expected speed of the aether was found. Once more the experiment produced a null result.’--- Collins and Pinch. (Golem, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.37.)
‘In 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School for Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the Earth’s motion with that at right angles to the Earth’s motion. To their surprise, they found they were exactly the same!’--- Stephen Hawking: A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1988, p.20.
So, because the smaller (down to .9Ksps over time) showed to 97% what a rotating universe around the Earth should show, a geocentric universe, they had to ignor the result and pretended it had a zero result. But this became a problem for them.
‘There had to be an explanation [for the Airy and M&M test result]. Either the Earth was motionless with respect to the ether, or the Earth dragged the ether with it, or something. All possible explanations seemed highly unlikely, and for nearly a quarter of a century, the world of science was completely puzzled. It took a scientific revolution to explain the matter, so that the Michelson-Morley experiment is perhaps the most important “failure” in the history of science.’ (Isaac Asimov: Chronology of Science & Discovery, p.388.)
In Einstein they found their man with his Special Theory of Relativity. To eliminate the small light fringe found in the M&M test and support the 'null meaning nil' result put out into the world after the M&M test, Einstein said nothing goes faster than the speed of light.
(2) Light as a Constant
Einstein, made three assumptions about light in his STR, all based on a heliocentric null means nil interpretation of the M&M and Sagnac ether tests.
(1) That the speed of light taken over limited distances on Earth is the same as those of vast distances in space
(2) That there is no greater velocity than the speed of light through a vacuum.
(3) That the speed of light is a constant, independent of any speed that its source or recipient might have (STR).
So, here are the maths; Light coming from Earth (as the M&M test used) at 670,616,629mph, PLUS the speed of the Earth supposedly orbiting at 67,000mph= 670,616,629mph Not 670,683,629.
Well, didn't they say the M&M test proves this whereas if the truth be known the M&M test falsified this.
(https://i.imgur.com/EiNcyJc.png)
-
Very interesting response. Are there any public people who are doing work with cassini ovals? Also by pear earth. Did he mean as a 3D pear and we live on the surface? Or a flat earth but pear shaped?
I have one paper written by Charles A. Muses: A MORE EXACT THEORY OF GRAVITATION DEDUCIBLE IN PART FROM THE SOLAR OBSERVATIONS OF J.D.CASSINI ( Roma Consiglio nαzιonale Della Ricerche (1965).
As for Einstein's 'That there is no greater velocity than the speed of light through a vacuum,'Muses wrote:
'The phrase in vacuo is a very doubtful assumption, for nowhere has been found any absolute vacuum. Thus for instance, if a compass needle is made to move by a magnet that does not touch it, even though both are in a vacuum with respect to the presence of other matter, there clearly exists a physical connection far more than merely geometric) between the magnet and the compass needle, for otherwise the magnet could not effect the observed rotation of the needle.'
Muses also wrote:‘The planets would thus ride in those energy grooves and the agreement between their semi-major axes and the zeros of the strongest (k = 0 or 1) cylindrical function is thus explained….. All in all, the theory of gravitation sketched here offers several new data, insights, and unifications for physical science and astronomy. There is no similar hypothesis that can explain all the data taken together or the parts taken separately.’--- Charles Muses.
As for a pear shape Earth,
Copernicus, Tycho de Brahe, Kepler, Newton and Cassini all took a global Earth for granted. Thus the shape of this global Earth was said by Newton to have a bulge around the Equator that caused the Earth to act as a gyroscope and cause precession. This was Newton's way to get the world to believe heliocentrism is proven. Cassini, a geocentrist was hated by the Newtonians because he proved them wrong about orbits and then about the shape of the Earth. Here is that science used to determine the shape of the Earth.
‘The period from Eratosthenes to Jean Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy. A new ellipsoidal era was begun by Sir Isaac Newton and Christian Huygens. In the Ptolemaic astronomy it had seemed natural to assume that the earth was an exact sphere with a centre that, in turn, all too easily became regarded as the centre of the entire universe. But, with a growing conviction that the Copernican system is true – the earth moves around the Sun and rotates around its own axis – and with the advance in mechanical knowledge due chiefly to Newton and Huygens, it seemed natural to conceive the earth as an oblate spheroid.’
King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini (Cassini II) and others, he measured the arc of meridian (see above) from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and further south astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. Cassini knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a northern measurement would confirm a probable shape of the Earth. Consequently, they decided to measure where it was most convenient, in Europe in the northern hemisphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/b0SchZh.png)
In 1959 another measurement for the Earth was found, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) higher south of the equator, and announced the Earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere. Seeking a few more details of this curious revelation we find that according to this latest measurement the South Pole is flatter by 50 feet and the North Pole higher (pointed) by 50 feet, as this illustration shows:
(https://i.imgur.com/5SvzOPk.png)
In the Journal of Surveying Engineering 1988, commenting on the current state of Astronomy and Space Geodesy, we find the following:
COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
By Tomás Soler and Larry D. Hothem, Member, ASCE
‘INTRODUCTION: The principal problem of geodesy may be stated as follows (Hirvonen 1960): “Find the space coordinates at any point P at the physical surface S of the Earth when a sufficient number of geodetic operations have been carried out along S.” Therefore, in order to know the position P, the definition of an appropriate frame to which these spatial coordinates refer is of primary importance. Due to the nature of the rotational motions of the Earth and to other geodynamic phenomena, a rigorously defined, Earth-fixing coordinates system at the degree of accuracy of our current observational capabilities is not presently available.’
‘Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say:
Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.’
(https://i.imgur.com/d71eQ7a.png)
A simple study of the subject, however, as Ecclesiastes 1:10 tells us, seems to show us they were a people who had knowledge far greater than we would expect such an ancient race to have.
‘The perimeter of the Great Pyramid’s base is 3,023.16 feet and its height is 481.3949 feet…’ Now consider these calculations:
(1) Perimeter of 3,023.16 feet ÷ 5280 (feet per mile) = 0.572568181 miles multiplied by 43,200 = 24,734.94545 miles circuмference.
(2) Height of 481.3949 feet multiplied by 43,200 = 20796259.68 feet
÷ 5280 multiplied by 2 = 7877.71099 (the Earth’s diameter) multiplied by (3.14) = 24,748.55897 miles circuмference.
(https://i.imgur.com/CfDkkqh.png)
The Great Pyramid maths show, 24,734 miles is the distance around the equator, and 24,748 miles is the distance from pole to pole, then this shows us their Earth is a prolate - not an oblate - spheroid, not flattened at the poles but slightly elongated, with the equatorial circuмference 13.5 miles shorter than the polar circuмference, that is, slightly egg-shaped. Coincidentally, this is the general shape the Cassinis found and published in 1720.
As for the shape of the flat-Earth science, I do not know, I presume it is flat and they have a different way to confirm it.
-
I still have doubts on the actual size though. From what i understand the distance of stars we are given are based on assumptions. There is a lot of 'empty space'. Though thanks for the posts. This is an interesting side of geocentrism. And many of the past posts are buried or may be lacking information.
Of course Anthony, nobody but God knows the distance of the stars from Earth, Sorry, God and Fr Paul Robinson SSPX.
‘From a scientific perspective [which I hold], it [the universe] began its infancy at time 0, 13.72 billion years ago [as the distance of those stars tell us], it is now in its middle age and is heading towards old age billions of years in the distant future.’--- Fr Paul Robinson. (The Realist Guide to Relighion and Science, Gracewing, 2018, p.367.)
Fr Paul basis his age of the world on the distance of the first stars since the Big Bang. The fact that Genesis says God created them all, no matter their real distance, immediately with the Earth was for the ignorant of science to get them to believe in the Catholic faith. But now, thanks to his book, we all know better.
Had Fr Robinson tasted the wine created immediately from water by Christ at the wedding feast at Cena, he would have concluded, ‘this wine tastes so good it has to be matured a very long time. Jesus must have known it was stored in a shed at the back of this building.'
-
I have one paper written by Charles A. Muses: A MORE EXACT THEORY OF GRAVITATION DEDUCIBLE IN PART FROM THE SOLAR OBSERVATIONS OF J.D.CASSINI ( Roma Consiglio nαzιonale Della Ricerche (1965).
As for Einstein's 'That there is no greater velocity than the speed of light through a vacuum,'Muses wrote:
'The phrase in vacuo is a very doubtful assumption, for nowhere has been found any absolute vacuum. Thus for instance, if a compass needle is made to move by a magnet that does not touch it, even though both are in a vacuum with respect to the presence of other matter, there clearly exists a physical connection far more than merely geometric) between the magnet and the compass needle, for otherwise the magnet could not effect the observed rotation of the needle.'
Muses also wrote:‘The planets would thus ride in those energy grooves and the agreement between their semi-major axes and the zeros of the strongest (k = 0 or 1) cylindrical function is thus explained….. All in all, the theory of gravitation sketched here offers several new data, insights, and unifications for physical science and astronomy. There is no similar hypothesis that can explain all the data taken together or the parts taken separately.’--- Charles Muses.
As for a pear shape Earth,
Copernicus, Tycho de Brahe, Kepler, Newton and Cassini all took a global Earth for granted. Thus the shape of this global Earth was said by Newton to have a bulge around the Equator that caused the Earth to act as a gyroscope and cause precession. This was Newton's way to get the world to believe heliocentrism is proven. Cassini, a geocentrist was hated by the Newtonians because he proved them wrong about orbits and then about the shape of the Earth. Here is that science used to determine the shape of the Earth.
‘The period from Eratosthenes to Jean Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy. A new ellipsoidal era was begun by Sir Isaac Newton and Christian Huygens. In the Ptolemaic astronomy it had seemed natural to assume that the earth was an exact sphere with a centre that, in turn, all too easily became regarded as the centre of the entire universe. But, with a growing conviction that the Copernican system is true – the earth moves around the Sun and rotates around its own axis – and with the advance in mechanical knowledge due chiefly to Newton and Huygens, it seemed natural to conceive the earth as an oblate spheroid.’
King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini (Cassini II) and others, he measured the arc of meridian (see above) from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and further south astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. Cassini knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a northern measurement would confirm a probable shape of the Earth. Consequently, they decided to measure where it was most convenient, in Europe in the northern hemisphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/b0SchZh.png)
In 1959 another measurement for the Earth was found, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) higher south of the equator, and announced the Earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere. Seeking a few more details of this curious revelation we find that according to this latest measurement the South Pole is flatter by 50 feet and the North Pole higher (pointed) by 50 feet, as this illustration shows:
(https://i.imgur.com/5SvzOPk.png)
In the Journal of Surveying Engineering 1988, commenting on the current state of Astronomy and Space Geodesy, we find the following:
COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
By Tomás Soler and Larry D. Hothem, Member, ASCE
‘INTRODUCTION: The principal problem of geodesy may be stated as follows (Hirvonen 1960): “Find the space coordinates at any point P at the physical surface S of the Earth when a sufficient number of geodetic operations have been carried out along S.” Therefore, in order to know the position P, the definition of an appropriate frame to which these spatial coordinates refer is of primary importance. Due to the nature of the rotational motions of the Earth and to other geodynamic phenomena, a rigorously defined, Earth-fixing coordinates system at the degree of accuracy of our current observational capabilities is not presently available.’
‘Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say:
Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.’
(https://i.imgur.com/d71eQ7a.png)
A simple study of the subject, however, as Ecclesiastes 1:10 tells us, seems to show us they were a people who had knowledge far greater than we would expect such an ancient race to have.
‘The perimeter of the Great Pyramid’s base is 3,023.16 feet and its height is 481.3949 feet…’ Now consider these calculations:
(1) Perimeter of 3,023.16 feet ÷ 5280 (feet per mile) = 0.572568181 miles multiplied by 43,200 = 24,734.94545 miles circuмference.
(2) Height of 481.3949 feet multiplied by 43,200 = 20796259.68 feet
÷ 5280 multiplied by 2 = 7877.71099 (the Earth’s diameter) multiplied by (3.14) = 24,748.55897 miles circuмference.
(https://i.imgur.com/CfDkkqh.png)
The Great Pyramid maths show, 24,734 miles is the distance around the equator, and 24,748 miles is the distance from pole to pole, then this shows us their Earth is a prolate - not an oblate - spheroid, not flattened at the poles but slightly elongated, with the equatorial circuмference 13.5 miles shorter than the polar circuмference, that is, slightly egg-shaped. Coincidentally, this is the general shape the Cassinis found and published in 1720.
As for the shape of the flat-Earth science, I do not know, I presume it is flat and they have a different way to confirm it.
Thanks for the response. If only there was some kind of Catholic science group trying to find the true answers.
-
Copernicus, Tycho de Brahe, Kepler, Newton and Cassini all took a global Earth for granted.
...
‘The period from Eratosthenes to Jean Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy.
First sentence indicates part of the problem ... taking it for granted.
Second sentence is simply false.
People can keep saying "earth is a globe" over and over again, but until I find a legitimate, viable explanation for the proven "see too far" problem, the globe earth model (eat least a globe the size scientists tell us it is) stands invalidated. It's really just simple math, and refraction as a deus ex machina explanation is sheer nonsense and has been debunked by several experiments.
-
This video from Dr. John D is absolutely devastating to globe earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMpyePcfDYU
-
This video from Dr. John D is absolutely devastating to globe earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMpyePcfDYU
Ladislaus, I'm not a scientifically-literate person. Can you tell me if there any PHd's who promote the flat earth idea? It's an issue that inspires indifference in me, except for the possibility that the issue may be promoted as some sort of diversion. Who is Dr. John D? Does he have a last name?
-
Ladislaus, I'm not a scientifically-literate person. Can you tell me if there any PHd's who promote the flat earth idea? It's an issue that inspires indifference in me, except for the possibility that the issue may be promoted as some sort of diversion. Who is Dr. John D? Does he have a last name?
I don't know his last name, but he evidently has a Ph.D. in a science field with some specialization in spectrometery. People who know him say he's a Doctor, but I don't recall anyone revealing his last name. This video does explain everything very clearly.
-
deus ex machina
Off topic but I've always wondered, is using this phase taking the Lord's name in vain?
-
Off topic but I've always wondered, is using this phase taking the Lord's name in vain?
No more than if you would be referring to a pagan god. Even the Bible refers to the gods of the heathen. It's a historical reference to Greek tragedy where the writer would get the main protagonists into such a pickle that the only way in which to "solve" the problem was to roll out a Greek god in a basket (usually suspended above the stage) that would magically make the problem go away. So it's a reference to a convenient contrivance to solve some problem, synonymous with waiving a wand.
-
For the record,
I am a young earth creationist and geocentrist. I am not a flat earther, but I am open to the arguments. For me, it is not finding and understanding a coherent flat earth system still.
-
I remember seeing some paper posted on Cassinian ovals a while back on this forum. I can't seem to find it. Does anyone have a link?
-
I remember seeing some paper posted on Cassinian ovals a while back on this forum. I can't seem to find it. Does anyone have a link?
Cassini measured the size of the sun every day of a year. Thus he was able to show an oval orbit for the sun called Cassini's oval. This falsified Kepler's ellipse used by Newton and astronomy ever since to have their heliocentrism.
If the sun moved around the Earth in a perfect circle, then the ‘size’ of the sun around us would appear the same all year round. Cassini discovered that the angular diameter (its size as it appears to us) of the sun does not remain the same apparent size all year round but gets slightly bigger and slightly smaller in its annual journey around the Earth; biggest when nearest the Earth around 2nd/3rd January (its Perihelion), and smallest when furthest from the Earth around 1st/2nd July (its Aphelion).
(https://i.imgur.com/tMiNz1v.png)
The appropriate template with a defining still-point for the Earth must not only lend itself to the matching of diameters and corresponding ecliptic longitudes, but also serve as a model that can for both sun and planets respectively wed periodicity to both positions and observable distances.
Cassini was sure of his curve by 1680 and the Cassinoid got its first public mention in Jacques Ozanam Dictionnaire Mathématique (1691) and by the Paris Observatory in 1693. His ‘Cassinian oval’ was further acknowledged in 1740 when his son Giacomo described it in his book Elements d’Astronomie:
‘By doing an exact observation of the sun’s visible diameters, my father has found a different curve to the ellipse, which is used to show exactly the real movement of the Sun and the several distances from the Earth.’ (Elements d’Astronomie, P.149)
‘As for the other [known] planets, their apparent discs have been exactly observed, which according to their different situations in connection with the Sun have different phases like the Moon, but less visibly in the furthest planets. By these observations it has been recognised that each planet makes its own revolution around the Sun, as Copernicus and Tycho de Brahe had supposed, and that they all have with regard to the sun about the same eccentricity as the ancients had assigned the Earth.’--- Giacomo Cassini: Elements d’Astronomie.
(https://i.imgur.com/3Aeh6hu.png)
Cassini’s Planetary Template:
-
How did Cassini pull off measurements of the sun’s size, since the apparent size of the sun will change due to atmospheric conditions?
-
How did Cassini pull off measurements of the sun’s size, since the apparent size of the sun will change due to atmospheric conditions?
As I am not an astronomer I looked up the question
Is there a correlation between the maximum magnification of Earth's atmospheric lens and the apparent diameter of the Sun and the Moon?
Atmospheric refraction doesn’t magnify, it reduces, and only in altitude. It’s strongest on the horizon, where it lets us see celestial objects up to about 1/2° below the geometric horizon; thus it reduces a 181° arc to an apparent 180° from horizon to horizon. The strength of the refraction varies non-linearly with altitude, from zero at the zenith to about 1′ (1 arc-minute) at 45°elevation, to a mean of 35.4′ on the horizon. The exact deviation varies slightly with atmospheric temperature and pressure.
When the Moon or Sun are on the horizon they appear slightly flattened due to the increasing amount of refraction from top to bottom, but their apparent widths are unaffected. Away from the horizon, the only significant impact of atmospheric refraction is that astronomical altitude angle measurements have to be corrected, depending on altitude. Azimuth measurements are unaffected.
Now if anyone knew about refraction it was Cassini: (https://i.imgur.com/Hi3OtHr.png)
In the years that followed, Cassini produced an astonishing number of observations, always improving the known data with better accuracy. As an example of Cassini’s genius, and how he revolutionised astronomy, let us read how he overcame the astronomical problem of refraction:
‘In order to establish the principles of astronomy in a solid manner, the Academy judged that before everything else it was necessary to distinguish false appearances from the true ones. The ancients had supposed that the rays of stars came in a straight line to our eye. It had been well noticed for about a century that this supposition does not tally with the observations, and it was recognised that the rays break up on passing through the ether in the air that surrounds the Earth. This ‘refraction’ makes stars appear higher than they really are, and that near the horizon it raises the sun and the moon more than the size of their diameters. But the most famous modern astronomers were still mistaken in that having remarked that the refractions become smaller to the measure as the heights get bigger, it was supposed that the refractions of the fixed stars become faded at the height of thirty degrees and those of the Sun at height of forty-five degrees. The academy discovered by making many very exact observations that the refractions both of the sun and of the fixed stars are still very perceptible at the height of forty-five degrees; that they are the same by day as by night; that they are not different for the Sun and for the stars; that they only become perceivable at the zenith; that it is therefore necessary to correct all the apparent heights of the stars, and even to lessen the heights of the Pole [star]. For even though the ancients had never made a distinction between the heights of the apparent Poles and the true ones, nevertheless it is a fact that the heights of the Poles appear in our climes to be bigger by a few minutes than they really are: whence it follows that up to now there has been error in all of the astronomic calculations based on the height of the Pole, and as there are few observations which do not suppose the height of the Pole, there are thus only a few (observations) that do not require correction.’--- J. D. Cassini.
-
Thanks, cassini. In addition to refraction, though, when the sun is lower in the sky, moisture in the atmosphere has a magnifying effect. Perhaps he was measuring only in certain regions of the sky. We've probably all seen the phenomenon of the giant moon when it's low on the horizon. It's been claimed this is an optical illusion, but it's most definitely not.
Since he was taking daily measurements, perhaps he was taking them as the sun was overhead rather than lower to the horizon.
-
This video from Dr. John D is absolutely devastating to globe earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMpyePcfDYU
While I've been a geocentrist for several years, I'm a flat earth rookie - neither for nor against, just never looked into it. Data, live footage, etc. Nicely done. This is a compelling video.
-
How did Cassini pull off measurements of the sun’s size...
I was reading this thread asking this exact question when this post appeared next. How was he measuring the sun hundreds of years ago without modern filters. Was he looking through some cardboard box with a pinhole in it? How would he observe the sun on a regular basis long enough to measure it?
-
Cassini decided to measure the Earth and found it was shaped more like a pear.
(https://i.imgur.com/7Vo6CRs.png)Was watching the video from the other thread and when I saw this I immediately thought of your post regarding the 'pear' earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52iHvGHSOL0
This potential shape of the earth is very interesting compared to the current flat earth model that is generally used.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/7Vo6CRs.png)Was watching the video from the other thread and when I saw this I immediately thought of your post regarding the 'pear' earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52iHvGHSOL0
This potential shape of the earth is very interesting compared to the current flat earth model that is generally used.
Another image. Wow this is just wow. A pear, a pear. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, also apparently another continent.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/QwJpZzd.png)
St Hildegard’s Universe with Jerusalem at the Centre of the Earth’s landmass
‘In Hildegard’s universe, the Earth is the centre, and spherical, around which were arranged concentric shells or zones. The inner zones are spherical, the outer oval or egg-shaped, and the outermost so formed as to suggest the acuмinated sphere that symbolises the fifth element, quintessence of the other four. This point that tapers into outer space is in the East, which is the top of the diagram. One of her drawings, says Singer, shows that she believed the antipodeans surface of the Earth to be uninhabitable, “since it is either beneath the ocean, or in the mouth of the Dragon.” In the interior of the Earth, she believed, are two vast spaces shaped like truncated cones, where punishment was endured, and from whence great evil came forth.’
-
For those interested in the history of the subject.
'As a matter of fact, Augustine’s views have sometimes been assimilated to those of his predecessor Lactantius (c. 250–c. 325), who famously ridiculed the idea that the earth could be spherical, because people in the southern hemisphere would have to have their feet above their hands and trees would grow downwards.'(Divine Institutes 3.24)
https://www.academia.edu/1037932/Augustine_and_the_Shape_of_the_Earth_A_Critique_of_Leo_Ferrari?email_work_card=view-paper
-
St. Augustine believed that the earth is Flat. What's causing the dispute is the fact that he believed the WORLD was spherical, including the firmament. That's easily demonstrated by someone who reads his text objectively.
-
St Hildegard’s Universe with Jerusalem at the Centre of the Earth’s landmass
‘In Hildegard’s universe, the Earth is the centre, and spherical, around which were arranged concentric shells or zones. The inner zones are spherical, the outer oval or egg-shaped, and the outermost so formed as to suggest the acuмinated sphere that symbolises the fifth element, quintessence of the other four. This point that tapers into outer space is in the East, which is the top of the diagram. One of her drawings, says Singer, shows that she believed the antipodeans surface of the Earth to be uninhabitable, “since it is either beneath the ocean, or in the mouth of the Dragon.” In the interior of the Earth, she believed, are two vast spaces shaped like truncated cones, where punishment was endured, and from whence great evil came forth.’
You keep citing this, but it actually goes against the NASA globe earth model. I've pointed this out before, but you persist anyway. She believed that the entire bottom part of the sphere is uninhabitable, since below you have the Great Deep and Sheol. I took the liberty of bolding the section you keep ignoring. It says this right here in the text you cite, but you seem to filter it out through confirmation bias. When various authors write of a spherical world, they're often including the firmament as part of the shape. So St. Hildegard's description looks more like this picture below than NASA's globe/ball. Those who believed that the world was shaped like a globe would have the firmament (as shown in the picture below) go completely around the entire spherical system.
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.900430380.8364/mp,504x516,gloss,f8f8f8,t-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg)
-
Copernicus, Tycho de Brahe, Kepler, Newton and Cassini all took a global Earth for granted.
And what do all these people have in common (except for Cassini...I don't know much about him)? They are anti-catholic atheists whom Modern Science loves. They promoted Sun worship, a vast universe, and the minimization of earth in the grand scheme of creation....all these ideas are anti-Scripture and anti-catholic.
What do all the famous Greek scientists have in common? They were pagan atheists whom Modern Science loves. Similar to above, they promoted Sun worship, a vast universe, the earth is small and not unique, etc.
Anyone whom Modern Science upholds is suspect.
-
The flat earth theory posits that the sun moves in a way that violates just about every law of physics we know of.
1. It floats in the air contrary to the observable phenomenon that everything naturally falls towards the earth.
2. It moves without propulsion. Impossible.
3. It moves in a circle. This would require an additional form of propulsion or force to overcome the centrifugal force of an object moving in a circle. By themselves, moving objects move in a straight line.
4. It moves in a spiral according to the yearly cycle of the seasons. Thus, it begins towards the center of the flat earth at the summer solstice, and as it rotates it is pushed by an unknown force towards Antarctica, mysteriously reversing its path back towards the north pole at the winter solstice. What causes this attraction towards Antarctica, and then pushes it back to the north again?
I could go on. Also, people have been observing ships disappear hull-first in the distance since literally the first ship that ever sailed (Noe's Ark?). The assertion that lower part of the ship becomes visible through a telescope or telephoto lens is absurd because an optical lens does not enable the viewer to see an object that was previously obstructed from view by another object. Lenses don't work that way; they don't change the nature of what someone is looking at, all they do is increase the size of what is already visible to the viewer. And the hull of the ship is obstructed by the surface of the water. No lens could enable a person to see through that obstruction.
The same is true of the sun when it sets over a body of water. The lower half of the sun disappears, from the bottom up, behind the surface of the water. If the earth were flat, it would be impossible for part of the sun to be obstructed by a body of water and the rest of it to be visible.
-
The flat earth theory posits that the sun moves in a way that violates just about every law of physics we know of.
1. It floats in the air contrary to the observable phenomenon that everything naturally falls towards the earth.
Hogwash. It's based on the "law of physics", many of which were made up. Gravity has never been proven. Nor has it been proven that the sun is actually some kind of body rather than an electromagnetic force. Finally, there's a firmament up there that the Church Fathers said the sun, moon, etc. were IN, and they held that these were suspended in the firmament.
-
2. It moves without propulsion. Impossible.
Ridiculous. Even with modern physics, there's no "propulsion" involved with the movement of the heavenly bodies.
Many of the Church Fathers felt that the firmament moved and carried the sun, moon, and starts within it.
Do light or electromagnetic waves have "propulsion"? What "propulsion" is moving the earth around the sun, and the sun through the galaxy, in your view of things?
-
3. It moves in a circle. This would require an additional form of propulsion or force to overcome the centrifugal force of an object moving in a circle. By themselves, moving objects move in a straight line.
Propulsion is absurd. See above. As for force, nobody to this day even knows what "gravity" is. And even if there's something akin to gravity, caused by electromagnetism or some other force as yet unknown, the sun could easily move in a circle based on the fact that the North Pole is magnetic, and so that alone could explain why the sun moves around it. Except, again, the Church Fathers believed that the sun was in the firmament and carried on its path that way. As for moving in a circle, that's unproven and unknown by FEs. It's speculation that the movement is circular.
-
4. It moves in a spiral according to the yearly cycle of the seasons. Thus, it begins towards the center of the flat earth at the summer solstice, and as it rotates it is pushed by an unknown force towards Antarctica, mysteriously reversing its path back towards the north pole at the winter solstice. What causes this attraction towards Antarctica, and then pushes it back to the north again?
Magnetic fields? Could be anything really.
-
I could go on.
With more nonsense. As per most of you, you've already begged the question and are looking for explanations. Modern cosmology and gravity theory are total garbage and are falling apart before our eyes, and you guys cling to it like it's some dogmatic body of truth.
-
Also, people have been observing ships disappear hull-first in the distance since literally the first ship that ever sailed (Noe's Ark?). The assertion that lower part of the ship becomes visible through a telescope or telephoto lens is absurd because an optical lens does not enable the viewer to see an object that was previously obstructed from view by another object. Lenses don't work that way; they don't change the nature of what someone is looking at, all they do is increase the size of what is already visible to the viewer. And the hull of the ship is obstructed by the surface of the water. No lens could enable a person to see through that obstruction.
Your explanation actually proves FE. It can and has been demonstrated repeatedly that ships that SEEM to disappear from view can be brought back into view simply by zooming in on them. And your explanation is PRECISELY why zooming in bringing the objects back into view demonstrates that they were not obstructed by the horizon. If they had been, they could not be brought back into view, ergo, they were not hidden by the horizon.
You clearly demonstrate that you haven't looked at any of the evidence but have already made up your mind and are now pulling stuff from your posterior to back it up. You haven't seen the myriad demonstrations showing ships "disappearing" from bottom up over an alleged horizon only to be brought back into full view by zooming in on them.
People who "observed" these things in "ancient times" didn't have the benefit of modern optics.
Of course, this doesn't even address the contradiction of those who claim (earlier on this thread) that no curvature would be visible even from 120,000 feet because you have to be hundreds of miles up before you could see curvature. And yet I guess you CAN see curvature from right on the surface.
Basically, when people see things that confirm their prior belief in Globe earth, then it's proof of Globe earth. When they see something that contradicts Globe earth, then it's false, even though it contradicts the proof they just made two minutes earlier.
Massive intellectual dishonesty on this question.
-
People should also notice how there's no refutation of the evidence for FE, just ridicule, changing the subject, putting forth specious arguments that they assume are proof simply because they've already begged the questions and are arguing from their own prior assumption.
-
(https://images3.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED945/6486f442945fe.webp)
-
The flat earth theory posits that the sun moves in a way that violates just about every law of physics we know of.
1. It floats in the air contrary to the observable phenomenon that everything naturally falls towards the earth.
2. It moves without propulsion. Impossible.
3. It moves in a circle. This would require an additional form of propulsion or force to overcome the centrifugal force of an object moving in a circle. By themselves, moving objects move in a straight line.
4. It moves in a spiral according to the yearly cycle of the seasons. Thus, it begins towards the center of the flat earth at the summer solstice, and as it rotates it is pushed by an unknown force towards Antarctica, mysteriously reversing its path back towards the north pole at the winter solstice. What causes this attraction towards Antarctica, and then pushes it back to the north again?
I could go on. Also, people have been observing ships disappear hull-first in the distance since literally the first ship that ever sailed (Noe's Ark?). The assertion that lower part of the ship becomes visible through a telescope or telephoto lens is absurd because an optical lens does not enable the viewer to see an object that was previously obstructed from view by another object. Lenses don't work that way; they don't change the nature of what someone is looking at, all they do is increase the size of what is already visible to the viewer. And the hull of the ship is obstructed by the surface of the water. No lens could enable a person to see through that obstruction.
The same is true of the sun when it sets over a body of water. The lower half of the sun disappears, from the bottom up, behind the surface of the water. If the earth were flat, it would be impossible for part of the sun to be obstructed by a body of water and the rest of it to be visible.
What force is causing the sun to move in the globe earth model? What force causes the earth to tilt and spin?
The very big reason flat earth has gained traction is because people can buy Nikon P900 or P1000 cameras now and zoom far out.
So people around the world are going out and filming boats and bringing them into view when they should be hidden behind the curve. Many of these videos, like all flat earth videos are being shadowbanned on Youtube. Why are they trying to hide it?
So why do the boats appear to be hidden "behind the curve" in the first place if they really aren't
and why does the sun appear to get cut in half when it goes far away making it look like it's "going down?
Vanishing Point! :)
It's explained here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/flat-earth-curious/msg799191/#msg799191
-
(https://i.imgur.com/9EgAcE6.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/W748kgN.jpg)
-
A question for flat-earth understanding.
(https://i.imgur.com/bNzft2R.png)
How are eclipses of the moon explained on a flat Earth?
A lunar eclipse happens when the sun passes behind the Earth causing the shadow of the Earth to cover the moon.
Don't both the sun and moon have to stay above a flat Earth?
On a flat-Earth the sun never passes under the round flat Earth to cause the wonder.
So, there must be an explanation as this is something flat-Earthers must have covered.
-
A question for flat-earth understanding.
How are eclipses of the moon explained on a flat Earth?
A lunar eclipse happens when the sun passes behind the Earth causing the shadow of the Earth to cover the moon.
Don't both the sun and moon have to stay above a flat Earth?
On a flat-Earth the sun never passes under the round flat Earth to cause the wonder.
So, there must be an explanation as this is something flat-Earthers must have covered.
Depends on how the circuits of the two line up really. Globe earth theory, claiming that it's due to the earth being between the sun and the moon, cannot really explain selenelions. Some posit another dark body up there that will occasionally occlude either the moon or the sun.
Also, one theory holds that the moon gives off its own light and that the moon is not a solid object, but more of an electrical or plasma phenomenon. Professional astronomers have recorded observations where stars can be seen through the "darkened" part of the moon. Strangely, also, moonlight actually has a measurable cooling effect. In that case, lunar eclipses are not really a "shadow" from anything.
I also find preposterous the explanation for why the same face of the moon is always seen from earth. If the difference between the moon's rate of rotation and rate of revolution around the earth were even a half second off, we'd notice the face of the moon changing over times. Not to mention that modern science claims that the moon is slipping a bit farther away every year, and so the rotation speed of the moon would also have to adjust to match that.
For all these reasons, I don't buy modern science's explanation of the moon.
Moon tide theory is also provably nonsense, i.e. the notion that the moon causes tides. Even Newton, who invented the theory, wasn't really satisfied with it.
Globers like to point out every place where FE doesn't have complete answers, but ignore how the globe theory has lots of problems that can't be answered either.
So one thing that Globers like to argue is, "Look, the shadown/darkness on the moon follows a curved line. Therefore, the object casting the shadow must also be curved/round." Problem is that it's not true. Experiments demonstrate that the shadow of a spherical object when cast onto another spherical object ... actually produces a straight line, and not a curved line (due to their BOTH being spherical).
For all that modern science claim that x, y, z are provable fact, the more we realize that they're full of it, and that these are nothing more than theories, and there's a lot of data out there to falsify their theories. It's possible that some aspects of the FE model can be falsified, but the way science works is that you refine your model and test it out, to see if it explains all observable phenomena. But the same thing holds of the globe. When mountains that should be hidden beneath 45 MILES of curvature have been photographed from 700 miles away (by non-Flat Earthers), there's a real problem, and refraction just can't cut it as an explanation.
-
How is the Coriolis effect explained on a flat Earth? the Coriolis Effect, with its sea-currents, winds and storms moving eastward on Earth beginning north and south from the equator
the inertia caused by a rotating universe has an understandable effect on a global Earth as illustrated
(https://i.imgur.com/rlW2wUo.png)
How can it happen on a flat-Earth if there is no curve to work on?
(https://i.imgur.com/Mr8v1vs.png)
-
How is the Coriolis effect explained on a flat Earth? the Coriolis Effect, with its sea-currents, winds and storms moving eastward on Earth beginning north and south from the equator
There is no "Coriolis effect" ... it's made up. But in FE theory, the firmament does revolve or rotate around the earth ... it's just that the stars aren't billions of light years away.
-
The Coriolis Effect can be demonstrated but what I think may be off about those experiments is the results and conclusions they come up with to explain it. I think it has to do with a rotating ether around a stationary Earth (my thinking right now) or certain electromagnetic push/pull systems (can't rule it out) and not the earth spinning as the modern "science" tries to explain it.
-
The Coriolis Effect can be demonstrated but what I think may be off about those experiments is the results and conclusions they come up with to explain it. I think it has to do with a rotating ether around a stationary Earth (my thinking right now) or certain electromagnetic push/pull systems (can't rule it out) and not the earth spinning as the modern "science" tries to explain it.
There are some phenomena that could be explained by Coriolis Effect theory, but then in other cases, the "effect" is nowhere to be found ... meaning that there's something else at work there.
-
The Coriolis Effect can be demonstrated but what I think may be off about those experiments is the results and conclusions they come up with to explain it. I think it has to do with a rotating ether around a stationary Earth (my thinking right now) or certain electromagnetic push/pull systems (can't rule it out) and not the earth spinning as the modern "science" tries to explain it.
I live in Ireland and we have benefited from the north Atlantic drift coming from Mexico. Most of our weather systems also come from the south west.
The M&M experiment, looking for an inertia of 30Kms found only one that was 97% to one caused by the universe spinning around the Earth or by a rotating earth. But for a heliocentric interpretation you needed a 30Kms. In other words the M&M test showed evidence only for a geocentric Coriolis. Because of this M&M said it was a NIL result trying to hide the geocentric result of a perfectly scientific experiment.
-
I live in Ireland and we have benefited from the north Atlantic drift coming from Mexico. Most of our weather systems also come from the south west.
While this is not an FE issue so much as a motionless earth question, I've always found it preposterous that the jet streams move in the same direction as the earth's alleged rotation. So the earth is rotating at about 700+ MPH on average in the most inhabited parts of the northern "hemisphere", so nearly the speed of sound, and further south, well surpassing the speed of sound. Yet the jet streams also move from West to East. In that case, they would have to be moving faster than the rotation of the earth. All the laws of inertia suggest that if the earth were rotating from West to East that the jetstream would be moving in the opposite direction from West to East.
-
While this is not an FE issue so much as a motionless earth question, I've always found it preposterous that the jet streams move in the same direction as the earth's alleged rotation. So the earth is rotating at about 700+ MPH on average in the most inhabited parts of the northern "hemisphere", so nearly the speed of sound, and further south, well surpassing the speed of sound. Yet the jet streams also move from West to East. In that case, they would have to be moving faster than the rotation of the earth. All the laws of inertia suggest that if the earth were rotating from West to East that the jetstream would be moving in the opposite direction from West to East.
Of course you can err, and you have a tendency to over simplify things and forget the very numerous variables involved. You also have a hard time identifying closed systems and considering things accordingly. The speed of sound has nothing to do with it. In fact, the speed of sound is high variable depending on temperature, pressure, density, the substance the sound is travelling through, ect.
There's nothing to keep the atmosphere stationary, no friction against any firmament or whatever. The earth has been rotating (if it is rotating) for plenty long enough for the atmosphere to have caught up to speed with it via the friction against the ground, trees, mountains, ect. On top of that, if the earth is a globe, the rotating mass of air would want to move toward the equator. As it does, it's pressure will increase because the volume of 2 hemispheres of atmosphere are trying to reach the equator, due to centrifugal force, so they collide and increase in pressure, or can increase in speed. This is how the air could end up moving faster than the earth's rotation. In all fairness, I think that the air would have a tendency to move slower than the earth at the equator because it is moving further away from the axis of rotation, but the air will still be moving in the same direction as the earth even at the equator. Therefore, the air still has the potential to exceed the speed of the rotation of the earth as the air collides from both sides of the equator.
On top of this is the variable of the sun's heating ability, which unevenly heats the atmosphere and could have a pushing effect on the air mass. The question is: which direction would the sun's heat cause the air to move? Maybe it could equally push it in either direction if the air wasn't already biased by the centrifugal force from earth's rotation.
-
While this is not an FE issue so much as a motionless earth question, I've always found it preposterous that the jet streams move in the same direction as the earth's alleged rotation. So the earth is rotating at about 700+ MPH on average in the most inhabited parts of the northern "hemisphere", so nearly the speed of sound, and further south, well surpassing the speed of sound. Yet the jet streams also move from West to East. In that case, they would have to be moving faster than the rotation of the earth. All the laws of inertia suggest that if the earth were rotating from West to East that the jetstream would be moving in the opposite direction from West to East.
(https://i.imgur.com/Cy3XlUk.png)
Spinning Earth effect? or Spinning universe effect
I couldn't agree with you more Ladislaus, I have been trying to figure out the logic of this for a long time. Compare their logic with a boat moving in water.
If you are in a boat moving through the water, you would see the effect the movement has on the water. Which of the two motions below is the most likely.
(https://i.imgur.com/VqpU6DE.png)
SPINNING universe
(https://i.imgur.com/SqggYjh.png)
ROTATING EARTH