Author Topic: Scientific Proof Earth is Not a Globe (Read 112139 times)

deutschcath · « **Reply #1245 on:** December 16, 2016, 10:20:26 AM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

To everyone trying to make arguments based on specific translations and/or interpretations of scriptural passages: you should realize that Revelation exists to help us know things that cannot be discovered by reason. It so happens that this question can be resolved entirely without any appeal to Revelation, and so it has no place in this conversation. Also, see thread title.

That said, I am still waiting for a flat earth explanation of sunset that isn't based on a flawed understanding of perspective. It is readily apparent that when an object gets further and further away over a flat surface, it will never appear to fall below said surface. If the world, and by extension the ocean, were flat, this picture would not be possible.

It is not a flawed understanding of perspective, it is simply that most people don't extend the concept far enough in a logical manner. The reason they have for not doing so is precisely because they have the presupposition that the earth is a globe and that objects disappear over the horizon.

This video here http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t87-loi-du-perspective-explique although in french has some excellent diagrams to explain the concept.

But you are never going to grasp this concept if you do not understand the lack of curvature. It is the foundation for the flat earth thesis that is "what we know of the earth is flat"

To answer Engineer Neils question, just because there are some presently un-explainable phenomena in the density of objects does not mean that gravity is the cause, or as a follow up that the earth is a globe.

noOneImportant · « **Reply #1246 on:** December 16, 2016, 06:06:35 PM »

Quote from: deutschcath

It is not a flawed understanding of perspective, it is simply that most people don't extend the concept far enough in a logical manner. The reason they have for not doing so is precisely because they have the presupposition that the earth is a globe and that objects disappear over the horizon.

This video here http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t87-loi-du-perspective-explique although in french has some excellent diagrams to explain the concept.

But you are never going to grasp this concept if you do not understand the lack of curvature. It is the foundation for the flat earth thesis that is "what we know of the earth is flat"

Except that's not how perspective works, and anyone can go walk outside and verify it by using their eyes. You are starting by assuming your conclusion is true, then inventing a new version of the physical laws to try to accommodate it, which involves light somehow bouncing off a mirror at an arbitrarily determined "divergence point".

That's not how logic works, and that's not how science works, but if you decide to start by assuming your conclusion and work from there, it's impossible to even have a discussion.

mw2016 · « **Reply #1247 on:** December 16, 2016, 06:23:22 PM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

Except that's not how perspective works

No one: Please demonstrate that you understand the law of perspective. I have yet to see you do this. Also, please provide any supporting illustrations that show you understand it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1248 on:** December 16, 2016, 10:58:30 PM »

All the constellations move counter-clockwise around which star of the northern hemisphere?

noOneImportant · « **Reply #1249 on:** December 16, 2016, 11:13:49 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

Quote from: noOneImportant

Except that's not how perspective works

No one: Please demonstrate that you understand the law of perspective. I have yet to see you do this. Also, please provide any supporting illustrations that show you understand it.

Let's start here:

How exactly are we explaining away the part where light bends at a sharp angle when it reaches the "horizon"? But only the part of it that it convenient to the pre-established assumption that the earth is flat, and not the other part. Also, when you take 5 steps backwards, the light somehow knows that and adjusts accordingly, so some more light randomly bends at a sharp angle to keep your view of the horizon consistent with flat earth theory...

Yea, somehow that makes sense... :applause: :applause:

mw2016 · « **Reply #1250 on:** December 17, 2016, 11:16:12 AM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

How exactly are we explaining away the part where light bends at a sharp angle when it reaches the "horizon"? But only the part of it that it convenient to the pre-established assumption that the earth is flat, and not the other part. Also, when you take 5 steps backwards, the light somehow knows that and adjusts accordingly, so some more light randomly bends at a sharp angle to keep your view of the horizon consistent with flat earth theory...

Yea, somehow that makes sense...

Thank you for so aptly demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about.

There is no place in the law of perspective that claims that light bends.

It is the angle of the long straight lines that changes in appearance, only from your point of view.

Just as how the light poles converge to a single point as you look down the street, even though you KNOW that if you walked down there, they would still be separated on either side of the street.

So, too, the shadow lines illustrated by the clouds in crepuscular rays appear to rise UP from the horizon line to a point directly OVERHEAD from your POV, and then descend to the exact opposite point on the other horizon line, even though we KNOW that those lines are still moving in a completely LEVEL straight line across the plane of the earth.

Have you never bothered to step outside your front door and look up at the sky while a chemtrail plane is passing overhead, or when there are crepscular rays happening at your own sunrise or sunset? I've photographed it at my house.

If you would bother to do this simple thing, you will be able to demonstrate the phenomenon of the law of perspective for yourself.

noOneImportant · « **Reply #1251 on:** December 17, 2016, 11:27:22 AM »

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1252 on:** December 18, 2016, 08:46:29 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

All the constellations move counter-clockwise around which star of the northern hemisphere?

Gee, no one here knows the name of the star around which all the constellations move counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere?

I thought we had more informed members on CathInfo.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1253 on:** December 18, 2016, 10:27:00 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Neil Obstat

All the constellations move counter-clockwise around which star of the northern hemisphere?

Gee, no one here knows the name of the star around which all the constellations move counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere?

I thought we had more informed members on CathInfo.

Okay, maybe that one's too hard, so here's an alternative question:

What do we call the time when the sun crosses the celestial equator?

mw2016 · « **Reply #1254 on:** December 19, 2016, 11:53:16 AM »

Quote from: noOneImportant

No one: again, what is your point? You show a total lack of understanding of the law of perspective.

These are not "light beams" in the diagram, these are lines of sight. Do you not understand this??

The line of sight from the POV of the observer converges to the central point on the western horizon, and then converges to the exact opposite point 180 degrees in the east. The point reaches 90 degrees from the observer's POV overhead. This is not hard, and as I said, you can go outside and demonstrate it for yourself.

happenby · « **Reply #1255 on:** December 19, 2016, 12:59:56 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

1
Deuteronomy 30:4
If thou be driven as far as the poles of heaven, the Lord thy God will fetch thee back from thence,

2
1 Kings (1 Samuel) 2:8
He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill: that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord' s, and upon them he hath set the world.

3
Job 22:14
The clouds are his covert, and he doth not consider our things, and he walketh about the poles of heaven.

4
Proverbs 8:26
He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world.

- - -

You can't have two poles on a flat earth.

Kind of interesting that 'poles' is more often translated "foundations". Further, who says there are only two? Or that scripture is talking modern day globe North/South poles? Since the context describes something more akin to the term 'foundations', the modern notion of magnetic barber poles goes out the door. The term foundation can be easily substituted for poles in any of the above citations and make a lot more sense and is the more direct translation. I mean, walking on the poles of heaven?

Also, another translation is pillars. What globe has pillars... or a foundation?

happenby · « **Reply #1256 on:** December 19, 2016, 01:01:28 PM »

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

Poor "Padre" Pfeiffer is very confused.

His quotes from the Church Fathers come from a PROTESTANT website.

Yes you read that right. Father Pfeiffer, instead of going to his books, goes to a protestant website to get commentary about the Church Fathers.

Here is the link
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

WORD for WORD exactly the same.

There is no backup whatsoever for the claims in these statements.

Ha ha! Busted Padre.

happenby · « **Reply #1257 on:** December 19, 2016, 01:05:28 PM »

Quote from: FlatEarthInquisitor

He also does not answer questions about curvature. Very convenient.

Another important point is St. Thomas.

ST. THOMAS DOES NOT FAVOUR THE ROUND EARTH.

Read the two quotes for yourselves. He simply cites Aristotle. He does not come down one way or another. If you try to drag in St. Thomas into the flat earth, you are being intellectually dishonest.

What's interesting is that Father would rather cite pagans than to permit Catholics like Cosmas and Enoch in the discussion. How very ironic. And convenient when one side blocks the use of 80% of the evidence before you get your hearing.

happenby · « **Reply #1258 on:** December 19, 2016, 01:08:08 PM »

FlatEarthInquisitor said:

The second one is not so easily verifiable to lay people, but is the strongest.
All of them are scientific and stick to the evidence before ones eyes. Let he who has eyes to see, see....

happenby · « **Reply #1259 on:** December 19, 2016, 01:14:53 PM »

Quote from: klasG4e

A request for anyone who wishes to follow up on this.

If you are a flat earther could you please list your 3 (and only 3) most powerful and convincing points which you have used successfully in "converting" a round earther to your position.

If you are a round earther could you please list your 3 (and only 3) most powerful and convincing points which you have used successfully in "converting" a flat earther to your position.

3 of the best arguments for flat earth
1. No curvature
2. Water doesn't stick to the underside or curve around the outside of any ball
3. Scripture and The Church are provably geocentric flat earth