Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: aryzia on February 25, 2016, 06:51:26 PM
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
-
What I don't understand if the earth is flat is how do satellites work. I did not watch your video maybe that explained it, I don't know.
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Silly and irrational. Planes and boats have traveled east (or west) and ended up where they started. That has nothing to do with NASA.
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Silly and irrational. Planes and boats have traveled east (or west) and ended up where they started. That has nothing to do with NASA.
The connection is that earth is flat, circuмnavigation is easily done on a flat earth. NASA lies with their fake globe earth picture cgi composites and tell us its the earth.
-
:roll-laugh1:
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Silly and irrational. Planes and boats have traveled east (or west) and ended up where they started. That has nothing to do with NASA.
The connection is that earth is flat, circuмnavigation is easily done on a flat earth. NASA lies with their fake globe earth picture cgi composites and tell us its the earth.
Circuм and flat are contrary. Nobody can possibly travel west on a flat earth and end up where they started in the East. Don't be a mental case.
-
What I don't understand if the earth is flat is how do satellites work. I did not watch your video maybe that explained it, I don't know.
Communications are ground based. There are no satellites. Check these out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAEu64aDLYI&list=PLhYbRbrP6OrmtnbS0fqthgnhAS6x6lNEl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvV9zZktq28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCts6dtyhjw
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Silly and irrational. Planes and boats have traveled east (or west) and ended up where they started. That has nothing to do with NASA.
The connection is that earth is flat, circuмnavigation is easily done on a flat earth. NASA lies with their fake globe earth picture cgi composites and tell us its the earth.
Circuм and flat are contrary. Nobody can possibly travel west on a flat earth and end up where they started in the East. Don't be a mental case.
-
What I don't understand if the earth is flat is how do satellites work. I did not watch your video maybe that explained it, I don't know.
Communications are ground based. There are no satellites. Check these out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAEu64aDLYI&list=PLhYbRbrP6OrmtnbS0fqthgnhAS6x6lNEl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvV9zZktq28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCts6dtyhjw
Ordinary people travelling in a boat west and ending up east. C'mon! Stop being a mental case!
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Silly and irrational. Planes and boats have traveled east (or west) and ended up where they started. That has nothing to do with NASA.
The connection is that earth is flat, circuмnavigation is easily done on a flat earth. NASA lies with their fake globe earth picture cgi composites and tell us its the earth.
Circuм and flat are contrary. Nobody can possibly travel west on a flat earth and end up where they started in the East. Don't be a mental case.
And when a plane flies over the north pole, toward the south pole....how do you draw that?
-
Earth is a globe.
Look at my avatar.
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Silly and irrational. Planes and boats have traveled east (or west) and ended up where they started. That has nothing to do with NASA.
The connection is that earth is flat, circuмnavigation is easily done on a flat earth. NASA lies with their fake globe earth picture cgi composites and tell us its the earth.
Circuм and flat are contrary. Nobody can possibly travel west on a flat earth and end up where they started in the East. Don't be a mental case.
And when a plane flies over the north pole, toward the south pole....how do you draw that?
Planes never fly over the south pole. Planes almost never fly in the southernmost regions because they have to travel too many miles to go around that large of a circuмference. Planes avoid southern flights in general. As you can see on a flat earth (in the picture) antarctica is not a continent but the ice wall that surrounds the flat earth and keeps the waters in. It is impossible to fly across antarctica.
-
Earth is a globe.
Look at my avatar.
Actually, that represents the entire world. The sky dome, the flat earth in between and sheol, which is the pit. Christ /Our Lady holds the orb or in this case, is represented by the orb, because Christ is the King of ALL of creation: heaven, hell and earth, not just the earth.
-
Earth is a globe.
Look at my avatar.
Actually, that represents the entire world... not just the Earth
St. Aquinas said the Earth is proven to be round.
EARTH IS A GLOBE.
-
Earth is a globe.
Look at my avatar.
Actually, that represents the entire world... not just the Earth
St. Aquinas said the Earth is proven to be round.
EARTH IS A GLOBE.
Aquinas never said anything of the sort.
-
Take a look at the 200 proofs video and see...is that too much to ask? Keep an open mind. You've been lied to by globalists who want to dominate and crush Christendom.
-
Besides scripture attesting to the flat plane with a dome over it and water above, the problem with the sphere becomes manifest when the globe's curvature cannot be demonstrated anywhere. Not today, not in history. No curve demonstrated--EVER. Experiments with far reaching lasers, airplanes and balloons sent into the upper layers of sky have proven logically, mathematically, and visually speaking, that earth is a plane.
Lets look at the globe more closely. Firstly, discussion in history about the globe remain that. Popes fought the pythagoran doctrine with a vengeance. Most saints and popes who discussed it at all were adamantly flat earthers because they were geocentric. Flat and stationary belong to the same model--geocentricism. Round and moving earth belong to the same model--heliocentrism. Ptolemy never said earth was a globe, rather, only that the heavenly bodies circled above the stationary earth. A stationary globe is a new invention by modern geocentrics who were globe indoctrinated from infancy. It was never that way in history.
No curvature commensurate with a globe of 25,000 mi in circuмference has ever been demonstrated. That's a serious statement--no curve, no ball. The surface of water on a globe is arguably unable to curve, let alone stay put on a surface where it can't possibly cling to the ball in all directions. Direction itself is challenged to scorn on a globe. One has to wonder: Is "up", up? Or is "up" actually just "out", in every direction? Is there an east or a west on a ball? Or are these just relative directions without basis? Did Jesus Christ rise to heaven above, or go "out" sideways? And when Jesus rose, did he technically go "down" relative to those on the opposite side of the globe? Is the horizon a horizontal line or a circle? God is not illogical, but profoundly simple. Earth is not a globe. The globe is the necessary groundwork for relativism and denial of truth. Satan's ape of creation visibly subverts the Faith, logic and scripture.
Besides the discussions in history that included saints and popes and outsiders, without exception, the only people who firmly taught a moving/globe earth were atheistic, demonic pagans, no matter what Wikipedia says. Those who taught geocentricism were Christian. Always, without exception.
Since Satan has recreated the world in his own image, replaced the truth for a lie, making a physical science to prove relativity and nonsense, rather than doctrine and truth, he gains a tangible platform for chaos and contradiction because the people interact with ridiculous contrary notions of God in the world in which they live. Heliocentrism/globe moving earth, is the PHYSICAL BULWARK for the SPIRITUAL ANARCHY we endure today.
It is without question that the sun danced in the sky not only to affirm the truth of the prophecies of Fatima but also to prove that it is the sun that moves, not the earth. With the reality of creation affirmed, Sister Lucy's words about diabolical disorientation take on a whole new dimension.
-
Planes never fly over the south pole. Planes almost never fly in the southernmost regions because they have to travel too many miles to go around that large of a circuмference. Planes avoid southern flights in general. As you can see on a flat earth (in the picture) antarctica is not a continent but the ice wall that surrounds the flat earth and keeps the waters in. It is impossible to fly across antarctica.
The depiction in your pic is Asia - Americas - Europe, correct?
-
Earth is a globe.
Look at my avatar.
Actually, that represents the entire world... not just the Earth
St. Aquinas said the Earth is proven to be round.
EARTH IS A GLOBE.
Aquinas never said anything of the sort.
"the earth, for instance, is round:
the astronomer proves it by means of mathematics"
St. Thomas Aquinas over 700 years before you started trolling this forum with your flat earth nonsense
-
Earth is not a globe, [...] Scripture was right all along!
What protestant "Scripture" are you reading? The true Scripture says the earth is a globe. Globes can only be round, NOT flat. Circles can be flat, but globes are naturally round. The protestant "bibles" describe the earth as a "circle" in the following verse, but the true Bible, which is Catholic, describes the earth as a globe:
Isaias 40:22 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x) (Douay Rheims)
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
-
Earth is not a globe, [...] Scripture was right all along!
What protestant "Scripture" are you reading? The true Scripture says the earth is a globe. Globes can only be round, NOT flat. Circles can be flat, but globes are naturally round. The protestant "bibles" describe the earth as a "circle" in the following verse, but the true Bible, which is Catholic, describes the earth as a globe:
Isaias 40:22 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x) (Douay Rheims)
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
The reference in scripture (Isaias 40:12) is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the CIRCLE of the earth" not "globe" of the earth. There is a word for circle and a word for globe and the word for globe is not used. In Genesis, earth is described like a tent, with a dome over it with water over the dome (for rain) and water under the earth in the great deep. Also under the earth is a great pit, which is hell. A pit is not a central location on a ball, but a pit under the plane of earth. The earth is described as a footstool. What footstool is a ball? And what ball has four corners?
-
Earth is a globe.
Look at my avatar.
Actually, that represents the entire world... not just the Earth
St. Aquinas said the Earth is proven to be round.
EARTH IS A GLOBE.
Aquinas never said anything of the sort.
"the earth, for instance, is round:
the astronomer proves it by means of mathematics"
St. Thomas Aquinas over 700 years before you started trolling this forum with your flat earth nonsense
He uses that a reference not a proof that he believes it. Besides, mathematics do not prove the earth is a globe, data gathered from scientific experiments do. And all point to a flat earth. No experiment ever done on the actual earth has ever shown curvature. No experiment can explain "gravity" which has been proven not to exist. No experiment has ever proven water can stick to the outside of a curved object. However, experiments do prove the horizon to be horizontal and flat for miles and miles way beyond any accounting for the size of the earth. Again, look at the proofs before you make up your mind. They are very interesting.
-
Earth is a globe.
Look at my avatar.
Actually, that represents the entire world... not just the Earth
St. Aquinas said the Earth is proven to be round.
EARTH IS A GLOBE.
Aquinas never said anything of the sort.
"the earth, for instance, is round:
the astronomer proves it by means of mathematics"
St. Thomas Aquinas over 700 years before you started trolling this forum with your flat earth nonsense
He uses that a reference not a proof that he believes it. Besides, mathematics do not prove the earth is a globe, data gathered from scientific experiments do. And all point to a flat earth. No experiment ever done on the actual earth has ever shown curvature. No experiment can explain "gravity" which has been proven not to exist. No experiment has ever proven water can stick to the outside of a curved object. However, experiments do prove the horizon to be horizontal and flat for miles and miles way beyond any accounting for the size of the earth. Again, look at the proofs before you make up your mind. They are very interesting.
Your username is Hebrew for Earth and your avatar is a painting of a GLOBE EARTH that looks like the Eye of the Illuminati.
Are you a Jєωιѕн shill? There's certainly more merit to that hypothesis than the stupid flat earth one you keep pushing idiotically.
-
Earth is a globe.
Look at my avatar.
Actually, that represents the entire world... not just the Earth
St. Aquinas said the Earth is proven to be round.
EARTH IS A GLOBE.
Aquinas never said anything of the sort.
"the earth, for instance, is round:
the astronomer proves it by means of mathematics"
St. Thomas Aquinas over 700 years before you started trolling this forum with your flat earth nonsense
He uses that a reference not a proof that he believes it. Besides, mathematics do not prove the earth is a globe, data gathered from scientific experiments do. And all point to a flat earth. No experiment ever done on the actual earth has ever shown curvature. No experiment can explain "gravity" which has been proven not to exist. No experiment has ever proven water can stick to the outside of a curved object. However, experiments do prove the horizon to be horizontal and flat for miles and miles way beyond any accounting for the size of the earth. Again, look at the proofs before you make up your mind. They are very interesting.
Your username is Hebrew for Earth and your avatar is a painting of a GLOBE EARTH that looks like the Eye of the Illuminati.
Are you a Jєωιѕн shill? There's certainly more merit to that hypothesis than the stupid flat earth one you keep pushing idiotically.
My user name is made up of the two names of my horses, Ary and Zia. I am a cradle Catholic, not Jєωιѕн. The avatar is a picture of an ancient flat earth map, not the Eye of the Illuminati. 3 strikes, you're out. In fact, it is the illuminati/jews/freemasons that have perpetrated the heliocentric lie on humanity. Heliocentrism is the astronomy of the pythagoran doctrine similar to the Copernican doctrine, essentially. Copernicus was an occult practicing Catholic priest. In fact, all the famous jock supporters of the heliocentric model were atheists/gαy/philanderers. Keplar, Newton, Einstein, to name a few. You don't have to attack somebody just because you don't understand what they are telling you. As I said before, go check it out. The science of flat earth is awesomely CATHOLIC!
-
Your username is Hebrew for Earth and your avatar is a painting of a GLOBE EARTH that looks like the Eye of the Illuminati.
Are you a Jєωιѕн shill? There's certainly more merit to that hypothesis than the stupid flat earth one you keep pushing idiotically.
My user name is made up of the two names of my horses, Ary and Zia. I am a cradle Catholic, not Jєωιѕн. The avatar is a picture of an ancient flat earth map, not the Eye of the Illuminati. 3 strikes, you're out. In fact, it is the illuminati/jews/freemasons that have perpetrated the heliocentric lie on humanity. Heliocentrism is the astronomy of the pythagoran doctrine similar to the Copernican doctrine, essentially. Copernicus was an occult practicing Catholic priest. In fact, all the famous jock supporters of the heliocentric model were atheists/gαy/philanderers. Keplar, Newton, Einstein, to name a few. You don't have to attack somebody just because you don't understand what they are telling you. As I said before, go check it out. The science of flat earth is awesomely CATHOLIC!
Your name is ARYZIA which happens to be similar to the Hebrew word ARITZIA which is derived from ERETZ and means EARTH, and your entire career on this forum has been trying to brainwash people into accepting Flat EARTH, yet you say this is all coincidence?
:laugh1:
You say the picture is of a flat earth map yet it's actually a painting of a globe Earth by St. Hildegard.
:roll-laugh1:
-
Here...I better use the quote so you know who I'm talking to. No worries. Have a good one.
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Silly and irrational. Planes and boats have traveled east (or west) and ended up where they started. That has nothing to do with NASA.
The connection is that earth is flat, circuмnavigation is easily done on a flat earth. NASA lies with their fake globe earth picture cgi composites and tell us its the earth.
Circuм and flat are contrary. Nobody can possibly travel west on a flat earth and end up where they started in the East. Don't be a mental case.
And when a plane flies over the north pole, toward the south pole....how do you draw that?
Planes NEVER fly over the north pole.
-
What I don't understand if the earth is flat is how do satellites work. I did not watch your video maybe that explained it, I don't know.
Satellites likely do not exist. 99% of communications are ground based. Towers handle everything. (Otherwise, why towers?) Check out pictures on NASA's website of the "globe" with satellites. Either they are cartoons added or, in many pictures of earth there are no satellites hovering about. How can that be? Unless they are cgi painted in. Also, how do satellites stay up there? The stratosphere is like 2000 degrees according to NASA. What kind of device can take that kind of heat? Do they really want us to believe that they can send something up there and it won't come down? Or melt? There are some pretty fascinating youtube videos on the subject and some scientific guys in the business that agree that there are no satellites. You'll need to pick through some videos, but the subject is really fascinating. Good luck!
-
Earth is a globe.
Look at my avatar.
Actually, that represents the entire world... not just the Earth
St. Aquinas said the Earth is proven to be round.
EARTH IS A GLOBE.
Aquinas never said anything of the sort.
Wikipedia
^ When Aquinas wrote his Summa, at the very beginning (Summa Theologica Ia, q. 1, a. 1; see also Summa Theologica IIa Iae, q. 54, a. 2), the idea of a round Earth was the example used when he wanted to show that fields of science are distinguished by their methods rather than their subject matter... "Sciences are distinguished by the different methods they use. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion - that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer proves it by means of mathematics, but the physicist proves it by the nature of matter." History of Science: Shape of the Earth: Middle Ages: Aquinas
-
Earth is not a globe, [...] Scripture was right all along!
What protestant "Scripture" are you reading? The true Scripture says the earth is a globe. Globes can only be round, NOT flat. Circles can be flat, but globes are naturally round. The protestant "bibles" describe the earth as a "circle" in the following verse, but the true Bible, which is Catholic, describes the earth as a globe:
Isaias 40:22 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x) (Douay Rheims)
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
The reference in scripture (Isaias 40:12) is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the CIRCLE of the earth" not "globe" of the earth. There is a word for circle and a word for globe and the word for globe is not used.
Nonsense. The word "globe" is used in Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims & Haydock Bibles), not "circle". "Globe" is translated and written correctly, therefore, the reader should translate it the same way.
-
Earth is not a globe, [...] Scripture was right all along!
What protestant "Scripture" are you reading? The true Scripture says the earth is a globe. Globes can only be round, NOT flat. Circles can be flat, but globes are naturally round. The protestant "bibles" describe the earth as a "circle" in the following verse, but the true Bible, which is Catholic, describes the earth as a globe:
Isaias 40:22 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x) (Douay Rheims)
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
The reference in scripture (Isaias 40:12) is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the CIRCLE of the earth" not "globe" of the earth. There is a word for circle and a word for globe and the word for globe is not used.
Nonsense. The word "globe" is used in Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims & Haydock Bibles), not "circle". "Globe" is translated and written correctly, therefore, the reader should translate it the same way.
Sorry, the word used is gh. In Hebrew word gh means "circle." The word for sphere is: rwd. Rwd is not used, so scripture says: "It is he who sitteth on the CIRCLE of the earth"
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Silly and irrational. Planes and boats have traveled east (or west) and ended up where they started. That has nothing to do with NASA.
The connection is that earth is flat, circuмnavigation is easily done on a flat earth. NASA lies with their fake globe earth picture cgi composites and tell us its the earth.
Circuм and flat are contrary. Nobody can possibly travel west on a flat earth and end up where they started in the East. Don't be a mental case.
And when a plane flies over the north pole, toward the south pole....how do you draw that?
Planes never fly over the south pole. Planes almost never fly in the southernmost regions because they have to travel too many miles to go around that large of a circuмference. Planes avoid southern flights in general. As you can see on a flat earth (in the picture) antarctica is not a continent but the ice wall that surrounds the flat earth and keeps the waters in. It is impossible to fly across antarctica.
Apparently you don't have any geometry or physics.
Number 1 - Do you realize that the photo you give completely distorts the actual proportions of the continents? Why don't you give us a somewhat realistic flat earth with all the land masses in proper proportion to themselves?
Number 2 - we have telescopes. If the earth was flat, you would be able to keep viewing a ship sailing hundreds of miles away because the water would be perfectly flat. But actually, the ship sinks below the horizon until it goes out of sight. Yes, you cannot view Cuba from Florida, but if you have the same telescope on a mountain, you can see much further than that distance.
Number 3 - If the earth was flat, the sun shining on a flat surface would be seen across the WHOLE surface simultaneously. It doesn't. In fact, if you are talking will someone on the phone 60 miles west of you at sunrise, They will see the sun only about 3 minutes after you do.
That's for starters.
-
Earth is not a globe, [...] Scripture was right all along!
What protestant "Scripture" are you reading? The true Scripture says the earth is a globe. Globes can only be round, NOT flat. Circles can be flat, but globes are naturally round. The protestant "bibles" describe the earth as a "circle" in the following verse, but the true Bible, which is Catholic, describes the earth as a globe:
Isaias 40:22 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x) (Douay Rheims)
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
The reference in scripture (Isaias 40:12) is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the CIRCLE of the earth" not "globe" of the earth. There is a word for circle and a word for globe and the word for globe is not used.
Nonsense. The word "globe" is used in Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims & Haydock Bibles), not "circle". "Globe" is translated and written correctly, therefore, the reader should translate it the same way.
Sorry, the word used is gh. In Hebrew word gh means "circle." The word for sphere is: rwd. Rwd is not used, so scripture says: "It is he who sitteth on the CIRCLE of the earth"
Link the source. Let's see if it comes from one of the "bibles" that have deleted 7 deuterocanonicals.
I cited my source.
-
It's not often that I can use this one.
-
Earth is not a globe, [...] Scripture was right all along!
What protestant "Scripture" are you reading? The true Scripture says the earth is a globe. Globes can only be round, NOT flat. Circles can be flat, but globes are naturally round. The protestant "bibles" describe the earth as a "circle" in the following verse, but the true Bible, which is Catholic, describes the earth as a globe:
Isaias 40:22 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x) (Douay Rheims)
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
The reference in scripture (Isaias 40:12) is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the CIRCLE of the earth" not "globe" of the earth. There is a word for circle and a word for globe and the word for globe is not used.
Nonsense. The word "globe" is used in Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims & Haydock Bibles), not "circle". "Globe" is translated and written correctly, therefore, the reader should translate it the same way.
Sorry, the word used is gh. In Hebrew word gh means "circle." The word for sphere is: rwd. Rwd is not used, so scripture says: "It is he who sitteth on the CIRCLE of the earth"
Link the source. Let's see if it comes from one of the "bibles" that have deleted 7 deuterocanonicals.
I cited my source.
No problem. Here's the one I ran into when looking this time. There are others, but I have not verified them. I don't necessarily espouse doctrine from here, (looks prot) but took the translation from Hebrew. If I'm mistaken in any capacity, I relent regarding this source. Let me know if these words in Hebrew are unusable. I will continue to look and get back to you when I can. Thanks for your sources and info! http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circleearth.htm
-
Earth is not a globe, [...] Scripture was right all along!
What protestant "Scripture" are you reading? The true Scripture says the earth is a globe. Globes can only be round, NOT flat. Circles can be flat, but globes are naturally round. The protestant "bibles" describe the earth as a "circle" in the following verse, but the true Bible, which is Catholic, describes the earth as a globe:
Isaias 40:22 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x) (Douay Rheims)
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
The reference in scripture (Isaias 40:12) is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the CIRCLE of the earth" not "globe" of the earth. There is a word for circle and a word for globe and the word for globe is not used.
Nonsense. The word "globe" is used in Isaias 40:22 (Douay Rheims & Haydock Bibles), not "circle". "Globe" is translated and written correctly, therefore, the reader should translate it the same way.
Sorry, the word used is gh. In Hebrew word gh means "circle." The word for sphere is: rwd. Rwd is not used, so scripture says: "It is he who sitteth on the CIRCLE of the earth"
Link the source. Let's see if it comes from one of the "bibles" that have deleted 7 deuterocanonicals.
I cited my source.
No problem. Here's the one I ran into when looking this time. There are others, but I have not verified them. I don't necessarily espouse doctrine from here, (looks prot) but took the translation from Hebrew. If I'm mistaken in any capacity, I relent regarding this source. Let me know if these words in Hebrew are unusable. I will continue to look and get back to you when I can. Thanks for your sources and info! http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circleearth.htm
Sorry for the late reply.
According to Google translate, the word "circle" is " מַעְגָל " in Hebrew. Upon viewing the following source, no Hebrew word resembles this aforementioned word in the verse Isaias 40:22, notwithstanding the parallel English translation is still "circle", but this is also a Protestant source. Look for yourself: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa40.pdf
Since some Jews frequent this forum, maybe they can weigh in on this issue, if they know Hebrew well. Is the original Hebrew word in Isaias 40:22 "circle" or "globe" or another word?
-
The Old Testament is in Biblical Hebrew. Google uses Modern Hebrew, which was heavily influenced by Zionism and the efforts to create a Jєωιѕн state. So likely not.
If you look in any language, it says "circle", though.
E.g., Reina Valera: "El está sentado sobre el círculo de la tierra" (He is seated above the circle of the Earth)
-
The Global Lie & The Principle
In this broadcast, I interviewed Robbie Davidson, the producer of the docuмentary, The Global Lie – Flat Earth Revelation. We talked about Flat Earth theory and also about the docuмentary, The Principle. NOTE: The producers of The Principle are NOT Flat Earthers, but their film really does show how much we’ve been lied to by so-called “modern science.” If the information in this film is correct, then we really do have to start over from the Beginning.
http://truthfrequencyradio.com/revolutionary-radio-rob-skiba-62117/
-
Since some Jews frequent this forum, maybe they can weigh in on this issue, if they know Hebrew well.
The Old Testament is in Biblical Hebrew. Google uses Modern Hebrew, which was heavily influenced by Zionism and the efforts to create a Jєωιѕн state. So likely not.
Quite helpful, rabbi.
-
Scientific Proof Earth is Not a Globe
How is it possible for this thread to be 9 pages long, let alone exist?
-
:cheers:
What has happened to the Mary Juanita & Wine emoticons? :roll-laugh1:
-
:cheers:
What has happened to the Mary Juanita & Wine emoticons? :roll-laugh1:
I liked the devil emoticon, myself. It had its purpose.
-
Since some Jews frequent this forum, maybe they can weigh in on this issue, if they know Hebrew well.
The Old Testament is in Biblical Hebrew. Google uses Modern Hebrew, which was heavily influenced by Zionism and the efforts to create a Jєωιѕн state. So likely not.
Quite helpful, rabbi.
What the fuck? That's called FACT. But some of you can't distinguish fact from made-up bollocks and that's why this thread is 9 pages.
-
If you look in any language, it says "circle", though.
E.g., Reina Valera: "El está sentado sobre el círculo de la tierra" (He is seated above the circle of the Earth)
Another fail. That's the point in question, and you haven't provided definitive proof that the Biblical Hebrew says "circle" in Isaias 40:22, nor has anyone else with whom I've had this debate. The ecclesial Latin says "globe". All that's been provided by proponents of "circle" is mere conjecture.
I trust St. Jerome's translation over all protestant "bibles" or modern translations in the vernacular.
I'm still waiting for somebody who's well versed in Biblical Hebrew to confirm if the word is "circle" or "globe" or another word, or if he can give definitive proof from another source.
-
The Flat Earth Controversy
http://www.testingtheglobe.com/bible.html
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Silly and irrational. Planes and boats have traveled east (or west) and ended up where they started. That has nothing to do with NASA.
The connection is that earth is flat, circuмnavigation is easily done on a flat earth. NASA lies with their fake globe earth picture cgi composites and tell us its the earth.
Circuм and flat are contrary. Nobody can possibly travel west on a flat earth and end up where they started in the East. Don't be a mental case.
You still have not answered that enlarged simple observation. Ships travel on the oceans going west from California and end up arriving in New York.
-
I wonder if the Dimonds were following this thread on Cathinfo and if that inspired their new video.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/EnLBicPoils[/youtube]
-
I am not trying to be sarcastic here. But why has no one fallen off the flat earth yet? I don't understand how if the earth is flat that ships don't fall off the edge of the sea or someone walking on the ends of the earth has not fallen off yet.
-
I am not trying to be sarcastic here. But why has no one fallen off the flat earth yet? I don't understand how if the earth is flat that ships don't fall off the edge of the sea or someone walking on the ends of the earth has not fallen off yet.
According to the flat earth model, Ice surrounds the perimeter of the flat earth.
-
This entire thread is chaff. It is posted on Cathinfo by a mole, to later use as evidence that Cathinfo is inhabited by "conspiracy nuts".
Chaff - radar-reflective aluminum foil strips ejected from aircraft by the ton with the intent of deceiving and defeating ground to air missles and radar.
-
This entire thread is chaff. It is posted on Cathinfo by a mole, to later use as evidence that Cathinfo is inhabited by "conspiracy nuts".
Chaff - radar-reflective aluminum foil strips ejected from aircraft by the ton with the intent of deceiving and defeating ground to air missles and radar.
All I want to know is the truth. Do you have any evidence from Nasa, the Government and or Military sources that have proven the curvature of the earth?
-
Since some Jews frequent this forum, maybe they can weigh in on this issue, if they know Hebrew well.
The Old Testament is in Biblical Hebrew. Google uses Modern Hebrew, which was heavily influenced by Zionism and the efforts to create a Jєωιѕн state. So likely not.
Quite helpful, rabbi.
What the ####? That's called FACT. But some of you can't distinguish fact from made-up bollocks and that's why this thread is 9 pages.
HAHAHA YOU ARE RIGHT !!!!
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Amazing!
-
I am not trying to be sarcastic here. But why has no one fallen off the flat earth yet? I don't understand how if the earth is flat that ships don't fall off the edge of the sea or someone walking on the ends of the earth has not fallen off yet.
I posted a link to a video that will explain everything in the first post in this thread.
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Amazing!
It is, isn't it! I think this group is likely (being Catholic and all) to have great introspective and input on this subject once they get their wits about them. The preconditioning to scorn regarding truth is well entrenched in the world and it may take some time, but the flat earth is going nowhere soon.
-
I enjoy looking at the night sky. In my experience, there is a local mountain, Mt. Pinos, that at 8800' elevation and in combination with expanse of the Pacific Ocean and the curvature of the Earth, affords me the opportunity to view into the center of our galaxy. It is only because of the elevation and curvature of the Earth that allows this observation from my location.
-
Another observation. I used to race sailing boats in Southern California waters. Catalina Island is approximately thirty miles offshore, and San Clemente Island another thirty or so miles further south. Due to the curvature of the Earth, you can not see the lights of Los Angeles until about 20 miles offshore. From Pyramid Cove on San Clemente Island you can not see the lights of Los Angeles at all.
-
I enjoy looking at the night sky. In my experience, there is a local mountain, Mt. Pinos, that at 8800' elevation and in combination with expanse of the Pacific Ocean and the curvature of the Earth, affords me the opportunity to view into the center of our galaxy. It is only because of the elevation and curvature of the Earth that allows this observation from my location.
Where is your proof there is curvature to the earth.
-
Another observation. I used to race sailing boats in Southern California waters. Catalina Island is approximately thirty miles offshore, and San Clemente Island another thirty or so miles further south. Due to the curvature of the Earth, you can not see the lights of Los Angeles until about 20 miles offshore. From Pyramid Cove on San Clemente Island you can not see the lights of Los Angeles at all.
The lights appear smaller the further away you get from them, until you can't see them anymore.
-
I enjoy looking at the night sky. In my experience, there is a local mountain, Mt. Pinos, that at 8800' elevation and in combination with expanse of the Pacific Ocean and the curvature of the Earth, affords me the opportunity to view into the center of our galaxy. It is only because of the elevation and curvature of the Earth that allows this observation from my location.
Where is your proof there is curvature to the earth.
:roll-laugh1:
-
Another observation. I used to race sailing boats in Southern California waters. Catalina Island is approximately thirty miles offshore, and San Clemente Island another thirty or so miles further south. Due to the curvature of the Earth, you can not see the lights of Los Angeles until about 20 miles offshore. From Pyramid Cove on San Clemente Island you can not see the lights of Los Angeles at all.
The lights appear smaller the further away you get from them, until you can't see them anymore.
Because I used to race a very fast boat, not long after the start of the race I would only see the masts of the boats behind me. The curvature of the earth causes the trailing boats to appear lower than the horizon, so that only their mast would show above it. Same occurrence at night, first the bow/stern light would disappear below the horizon, then the masthead light.
-
I enjoy looking at the night sky. In my experience, there is a local mountain, Mt. Pinos, that at 8800' elevation and in combination with expanse of the Pacific Ocean and the curvature of the Earth, affords me the opportunity to view into the center of our galaxy. It is only because of the elevation and curvature of the Earth that allows this observation from my location.
Where is your proof there is curvature to the earth.
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/MLlHh.jpg)
-
How would you explain the movement of Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse?
-
I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if anyone said this before, but if the earth was flat then I don't understand how it can be night at different times for the different parts of the world. It seems to me that if the earth was flat it would always be night at the same time all over the world.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bco_p4V7-QU
-
[6] And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. [7] Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. [8] Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, [9] And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. [10] Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.
Maybe the devil had to take Jesus up to a very high mountain to show him the kingdoms' of the world because the world is flat.
-
Maybe the devil had to take Jesus up to a very high mountain to show him the kingdoms' of the world because the world is flat.
(http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/210543_700b_v1.jpg)
-
First let me say I believe that the geocentric model is how God designed the Universe.
Now for those on this forum that are spreading this idiotic notion that the Earth is flat, what is your motive? Are you trying to embarrass those of us who belive that geocentrism is correct? Are you doing it to discredit traditional Catholics and Catholism? To be charitable, I think that the real reason is because either your brain lacks the ability to reason or you are just plain gullible.
I will give just one example to PROVE you are wrong:
Take a road trip to the state of Colorado. Start your journey from the east, at the Kansas border on I 70. This is an extremely flat part of the country. From there drive west. When you get to the town of Flagler, Colorado you will notice that the top (summit) of a mountain called Pikes Peak comes into view and that the base is obscured by the Earths curvature. As you continue driving west you will see more and more of the mountain, from TOP to BOTTOM. About 20 years ago I observed this phenomenon with my own two eyes.
Now, until you do this little experiment, please refrain from posting your nonsense on the internet.
-
I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if anyone said this before, but if the earth was flat then I don't understand how it can be night at different times for the different parts of the world. It seems to me that if the earth was flat it would always be night at the same time all over the world.
Precisely this. A flat earth could not revolve around the sun, which means variations in time could not be possible.
-
Precisely this. A flat earth could not revolve around the sun, which means variations in time could not be possible.
Don't you mean the sun around the Earth (at least in principle) dear?
Also, as far as the night/day cycle goes, FlatEarthers I believe propose a "directional lamp" model for the Sun, for which it is able to light only parts of the World at a time.
PS: I see a good dose of mockery and prideful ignorance on this thread, reminiscent of how the "orthodox" cosmologists/astronomers treat Geocentrists: instead of actually reading up on their hypothesis/theories they simply dismiss it wholesale and resort to hypersimplicistic counter arguments and mockery.
I believe Flat Earth to be a sham, and possibly a schemed hoax by nefarious agents. Yet that doesn't meant I will mimic mainstreamers in their errors.
-
First let me say I believe that the geocentric model is how God designed the Universe.
Now for those on this forum that are spreading this idiotic notion that the Earth is flat, what is your motive? Are you trying to embarrass those of us who belive that geocentrism is correct? Are you doing it to discredit traditional Catholics and Catholism? To be charitable, I think that the real reason is because either your brain lacks the ability to reason or you are just plain gullible.
I will give just one example to PROVE you are wrong:
Take a road trip to the state of Colorado. Start your journey from the east, at the Kansas border on I 70. This is an extremely flat part of the country. From there drive west. When you get to the town of Flagler, Colorado you will notice that the top (summit) of a mountain called Pikes Peak comes into view and that the base is obscured by the Earths curvature. As you continue driving west you will see more and more of the mountain, from TOP to BOTTOM. About 20 years ago I observed this phenomenon with my own two eyes.
Now, until you do this little experiment, please refrain from posting your nonsense on the internet.
It only takes the amount of time it took to know that 911 was a fαℓѕє fℓαg. Take the time to watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
-
Precisely this. A flat earth could not revolve around the sun, which means variations in time could not be possible.
Don't you mean the sun around the Earth (at least in principle) dear?
Also, as far as the night/day cycle goes, FlatEarthers I believe propose a "directional lamp" model for the Sun, for which it is able to light only parts of the World at a time.
PS: I see a good dose of mockery and prideful ignorance on this thread, reminiscent of how the "orthodox" cosmologists/astronomers treat Geocentrists: instead of actually reading up on their hypothesis/theories they simply dismiss it wholesale and resort to hypersimplicistic counter arguments and mockery.
I believe Flat Earth to be a sham, and possibly a schemed hoax by nefarious agents. Yet that doesn't meant I will mimic mainstreamers in their errors.
Flat Earth is provably not a sham. Please take the time to inform yourself. This video is a great start:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
-
Another observation. I used to race sailing boats in Southern California waters. Catalina Island is approximately thirty miles offshore, and San Clemente Island another thirty or so miles further south. Due to the curvature of the Earth, you can not see the lights of Los Angeles until about 20 miles offshore. From Pyramid Cove on San Clemente Island you can not see the lights of Los Angeles at all.
The lights appear smaller the further away you get from them, until you can't see them anymore.
Because I used to race a very fast boat, not long after the start of the race I would only see the masts of the boats behind me. The curvature of the earth causes the trailing boats to appear lower than the horizon, so that only their mast would show above it. Same occurrence at night, first the bow/stern light would disappear below the horizon, then the masthead light.
You will quickly see that your perception about the boat is mistaken. Please watch this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
-
Another observation. I used to race sailing boats in Southern California waters. Catalina Island is approximately thirty miles offshore, and San Clemente Island another thirty or so miles further south. Due to the curvature of the Earth, you can not see the lights of Los Angeles until about 20 miles offshore. From Pyramid Cove on San Clemente Island you can not see the lights of Los Angeles at all.
I've seen zoom lenses show Catalina in its entirety from the California shore, something impossible if the earth is a globe. It doesn't take much time to get the information. Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
-
This entire thread is chaff. It is posted on Cathinfo by a mole, to later use as evidence that Cathinfo is inhabited by "conspiracy nuts".
Chaff - radar-reflective aluminum foil strips ejected from aircraft by the ton with the intent of deceiving and defeating ground to air missles and radar.
All I want to know is the truth. Do you have any evidence from Nasa, the Government and or Military sources that have proven the curvature of the earth?
It takes so little time to get to the truth of this. Watch this video so you can know...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Silly and irrational. Planes and boats have traveled east (or west) and ended up where they started. That has nothing to do with NASA.
The connection is that earth is flat, circuмnavigation is easily done on a flat earth. NASA lies with their fake globe earth picture cgi composites and tell us its the earth.
Circuм and flat are contrary. Nobody can possibly travel west on a flat earth and end up where they started in the East. Don't be a mental case.
You still have not answered that enlarged simple observation. Ships travel on the oceans going west from California and end up arriving in New York.
I've left you a link in another place, but I'll leave it again. I am the mother of 13 children. As a Catholic, I take this very seriously. Please take this time, it will be well worth your while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
-
Scientific Proof Earth is Not a Globe
How is it possible for this thread to be 9 pages long, let alone exist?
If you took a little time to inform yourself and view this videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg , you would probably then ask why this thread isn't 9000 pages long. This is a Catholic teaching, but you can't possibly know until you view the science involved. Its easy to understand and very clear.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJDDiDc2zyY
For those who want to know why the heliocentric hoax? Why does is matter whether earth is flat?
Take five minutes...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnIx6x6uO3Q
Here's the biblical proof of flat earth link that didn't come through like it should in the last post.
-
:roll-laugh1:
-
:roll-laugh1:
If you can give evidence after watching the provided videos, i would be happy to discuss this with you. Please take the time, you will find it fascinating. Do you believe man went to the moon?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI
Ha ha, NASA caught with their pants down along with harnesses on their astro nots!
-
This entire thread is chaff. It is posted on Cathinfo by a mole, to later use as evidence that Cathinfo is inhabited by "conspiracy nuts".
Chaff - radar-reflective aluminum foil strips ejected from aircraft by the ton with the intent of deceiving and defeating ground to air missles and radar.
All I want to know is the truth. Do you have any evidence from Nasa, the Government and or Military sources that have proven the curvature of the earth?
It takes so little time to get to the truth of this. Watch this video so you can know...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Not exactly a little time, I've watched it to like #80 so far. Very interesting. I can't argue with it. I see now how one can go West from California and end up in New York on a flat earth model.
What is hard to believe is that the whole world has been fooled by the globe Earth "dogma". I find it hard to believe that of everyone working in space programs all over the world, practically zero have come forward. It will be hard to convince people that the Earth is flat without appearing to be a total nut. It is best to ask questions, like the line of sight examples and specially for me, the 69,000 mile circuмference of Antarctica versus the "known" circuмference of the Earth of 24,901 miles. Very interesting material. Reminds me of the saying that:
"Tell a man that there are 400 billion stars and he'll believe you.
Tell him a bench has wet paint and he has to touch it."
The line of sight examples are like touching the wet paint bench, something anyone can do.
-
:roll-laugh1:
-
:roll-laugh1:
Sedevacantists have little to offer but an empty tomb of a religion. They possess nothing legitimate to make their case: no authority, no sacraments, no church, no unified belief, no fellow believers, no priests, no bishops, no pope, no succession, no creed, no mass, no Eucharist, no Confession, no hope.
Sedevacantists remain a highly exclusive group standing against any possibility of a visible Catholic Church in the modern world, spurning all who do not embrace their diverse views. They have no unity of belief, but embrace what amounts to a form of Protestantism, united against the practice of the Catholic Faith in the name of their understanding, wide and varying in kind.
-
This entire thread is chaff. It is posted on Cathinfo by a mole, to later use as evidence that Cathinfo is inhabited by "conspiracy nuts".
Chaff - radar-reflective aluminum foil strips ejected from aircraft by the ton with the intent of deceiving and defeating ground to air missles and radar.
All I want to know is the truth. Do you have any evidence from Nasa, the Government and or Military sources that have proven the curvature of the earth?
It takes so little time to get to the truth of this. Watch this video so you can know...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Not exactly a little time, I've watched it to like #80 so far. Very interesting. I can't argue with it. I see now how one can go West from California and end up in New York on a flat earth model.
What is hard to believe is that the whole world has been fooled by the globe Earth "dogma". I find it hard to believe that of everyone working in space programs all over the world, practically zero have come forward. It will be hard to convince people that the Earth is flat without appearing to be a total nut. It is best to ask questions, like the line of sight examples and specially for me, the 69,000 mile circuмference of Antarctica versus the "known" circuмference of the Earth of 24,901 miles. Very interesting material. Reminds me of the saying that:
"Tell a man that there are 400 billion stars and he'll believe you.
Tell him a bench has wet paint and he has to touch it."
The line of sight examples are like touching the wet paint bench, something anyone can do.
Great quote! Indeed, it will be hard to convince ppl. But Catholics possess a certain humility and given the facts, will be the first to come around. It's time to put an end to the Baal earth!
-
There is an affordable way to take photos from very high altitudes, by using a digital camera, a weather balloon, packing and a prepaid cellphone. The instructions are available online, and the whole thing costs less than $200. With these photos, one can see the earth from an altitude of nearly 18 miles.
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/sep/21/mit-students-budget-space-photographs
http://www.mit.edu/~adalca/SpaceCam/
-
THE MAN WHO ACCURATELY ESTIMATED THE CIRcuмFERENCE OF THE EARTH OVER 2,000 YEARS AGO
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/amazing-eratosthenes/
-
:roll-laugh1:
Sedevacantists have little to offer but an empty tomb of a religion. They possess nothing legitimate to make their case: no authority, no sacraments, no church, no unified belief, no fellow believers, no priests, no bishops, no pope, no succession, no creed, no mass, no Eucharist, no Confession, no hope.
Sedevacantists remain a highly exclusive group standing against any possibility of a visible Catholic Church in the modern world, spurning all who do not embrace their diverse views. They have no unity of belief, but embrace what amounts to a form of Protestantism, united against the practice of the Catholic Faith in the name of their understanding, wide and varying in kind.
Now I understand.......critical thinking and intellectual realism is something that you're adverse to.
-
I have a friend who flew the Concorde often and each time he could see the curvature of the Earth with his own eyes.
As P.T. Barnum was said to have said:
"There's a sucker born every minute and two to take him"
-
There is an affordable way to take photos from very high altitudes, by using a digital camera, a weather balloon, packing and a prepaid cellphone. The instructions are available online, and the whole thing costs less than $200. With these photos, one can see the earth from an altitude of nearly 18 miles.
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/sep/21/mit-students-budget-space-photographs
http://www.mit.edu/~adalca/SpaceCam/
Cool idea, hands on.
-
I have a friend who flew the Concorde often and each time he could see the curvature of the Earth with his own eyes.
As P.T. Barnum was said to have said:
"There's a sucker born every minute and two to take him"
Anyone who sees curve has a wild imagination. Watch the video provided in this thread, namely 200 proofs earth is not a globe (nor a baal) and you will see that for absolute certain, without question, there is zero curve and earth is not a sphere.
-
:roll-laugh1:
Sedevacantists have little to offer but an empty tomb of a religion. They possess nothing legitimate to make their case: no authority, no sacraments, no church, no unified belief, no fellow believers, no priests, no bishops, no pope, no succession, no creed, no mass, no Eucharist, no Confession, no hope.
Sedevacantists remain a highly exclusive group standing against any possibility of a visible Catholic Church in the modern world, spurning all who do not embrace their diverse views. They have no unity of belief, but embrace what amounts to a form of Protestantism, united against the practice of the Catholic Faith in the name of their understanding, wide and varying in kind.
Now I understand.......critical thinking and intellectual realism is something that you're adverse to.
Not at all, critical thinking is my life. Sedevacantism is everything I said above. Who's the sede earthly authority, the light on the hill as scripture describes the Church? Where's the pope? Wheres the unified belief? Where's the bishops? Where's the succession? Where's the proof Francis was deposed? Where indeed?
Sedevacantism is a movement designed by evil to prevent the deposing of an heretic/apostate pope--Francis.
-
:roll-laugh1:
Sedevacantists have little to offer but an empty tomb of a religion. They possess nothing legitimate to make their case: no authority, no sacraments, no church, no unified belief, no fellow believers, no priests, no bishops, no pope, no succession, no creed, no mass, no Eucharist, no Confession, no hope.
Sedevacantists remain a highly exclusive group standing against any possibility of a visible Catholic Church in the modern world, spurning all who do not embrace their diverse views. They have no unity of belief, but embrace what amounts to a form of Protestantism, united against the practice of the Catholic Faith in the name of their understanding, wide and varying in kind.
Now I understand.......critical thinking and intellectual realism is something that you're adverse to.
Not at all, critical thinking is my life. Sedevacantism is everything I said above. Who's the sede earthly authority, the light on the hill as scripture describes the Church? Where's the pope? Wheres the unified belief? Where's the bishops? Where's the succession? Where's the proof Francis was deposed? Where indeed?
Sedevacantism is a movement designed by evil to prevent the deposing of an heretic/apostate pope--Francis.
Remember......critical thinking and intellectual realism.
You do realize that it is heresy to believe that a true pope can be deposed by any person or council, don't you?
-
:roll-laugh1:
Sedevacantists have little to offer but an empty tomb of a religion. They possess nothing legitimate to make their case: no authority, no sacraments, no church, no unified belief, no fellow believers, no priests, no bishops, no pope, no succession, no creed, no mass, no Eucharist, no Confession, no hope.
Sedevacantists remain a highly exclusive group standing against any possibility of a visible Catholic Church in the modern world, spurning all who do not embrace their diverse views. They have no unity of belief, but embrace what amounts to a form of Protestantism, united against the practice of the Catholic Faith in the name of their understanding, wide and varying in kind.
Now I understand.......critical thinking and intellectual realism is something that you're adverse to.
Not at all, critical thinking is my life. Sedevacantism is everything I said above. Who's the sede earthly authority, the light on the hill as scripture describes the Church? Where's the pope? Wheres the unified belief? Where's the bishops? Where's the succession? Where's the proof Francis was deposed? Where indeed?
Sedevacantism is a movement designed by evil to prevent the deposing of an heretic/apostate pope--Francis.
Remember......critical thinking and intellectual realism.
You do realize that it is heresy to believe that a true pope can be deposed by any person or council, don't you?
A council does not depose a true pope, rather, bishops assemble to determine if a pope is a heretic worthy of the name. God deposes the pope upon the finding of heresy. This is to safeguard the Church, for the people are in need of an official pronouncement of finding. Also, because no one but God judges the pope. It is a necessary step and the sedevacantists by virtue of their error, block the pursuit of such action on Pope Francis.
“tell it to the church; and if he
refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17).
-
Also on the subject of sedevacantism:
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or
passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante
Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any
excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical
impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
Not so cut and dried as the sedes would think. But I digress. This thread is for the discussion of flat earth.
:fryingpan:
-
:roll-laugh1:
Sedevacantists have little to offer but an empty tomb of a religion. They possess nothing legitimate to make their case: no authority, no sacraments, no church, no unified belief, no fellow believers, no priests, no bishops, no pope, no succession, no creed, no mass, no Eucharist, no Confession, no hope.
Sedevacantists remain a highly exclusive group standing against any possibility of a visible Catholic Church in the modern world, spurning all who do not embrace their diverse views. They have no unity of belief, but embrace what amounts to a form of Protestantism, united against the practice of the Catholic Faith in the name of their understanding, wide and varying in kind.
Aryzia, how the hell do you get from flat earth mumbo-jumbo to sedevacantism and make this the 85th thread on sedevacantism in forever? Are you on drugs?
-
:roll-laugh1:
Sedevacantists have little to offer but an empty tomb of a religion. They possess nothing legitimate to make their case: no authority, no sacraments, no church, no unified belief, no fellow believers, no priests, no bishops, no pope, no succession, no creed, no mass, no Eucharist, no Confession, no hope.
Sedevacantists remain a highly exclusive group standing against any possibility of a visible Catholic Church in the modern world, spurning all who do not embrace their diverse views. They have no unity of belief, but embrace what amounts to a form of Protestantism, united against the practice of the Catholic Faith in the name of their understanding, wide and varying in kind.
Aryzia, how the hell do you get from flat earth mumbo-jumbo to sedevacantism and make this the 85th thread on sedevacantism in forever? Are you on drugs?
I was dragged into the sede convo by badgering posts. It may the the 85th thread on the subject, but I went ahead and answered the call.
-
Also on the subject of sedevacantism:
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or
passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante
Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any
excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical
impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
Not so cut and dried as the sedes would think. But I digress. This thread is for the discussion of flat earth.
:fryingpan:
An heretic is not a member of the Church because they do not have the Faith. Both of your quotes pertain to Cardinals who are still members of the Church but are under some ecclesiastical impediment. Notice the word, "ecclesiastical". Loss of the Faith pertains to Divine law not ecclesiastical law.
You really need to put down Siscoe and Salza's book!
Try to reconcile what you think Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII meant and this quote of Pope Pius XII from his encyclical, Mystici Corporis: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
-
Also on the subject of sedevacantism:
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or
passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante
Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any
excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical
impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
Not so cut and dried as the sedes would think. But I digress. This thread is for the discussion of flat earth.
:fryingpan:
An heretic is not a member of the Church because they do not have the Faith. Both of your quotes pertain to Cardinals who are still members of the Church but are under some ecclesiastical impediment. Notice the word, "ecclesiastical". Loss of the Faith pertains to Divine law not ecclesiastical law.
You really need to put down Siscoe and Salza's book!
Try to reconcile what you think Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII meant and this quote of Pope Pius XII from his encyclical, Mystici Corporis: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
I gave you two quotes by two popes that obliterate sedevacantism, a nonsensical premise that hinders the process to expose Pope Francis officially. There is nothing left to discuss.
-
...by reason of ANY
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment”
-
Also on the subject of sedevacantism:
Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or
passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante
Sede Apostolica, 1904).
Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any
excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical
impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
Not so cut and dried as the sedes would think. But I digress. This thread is for the discussion of flat earth.
:fryingpan:
An heretic is not a member of the Church because they do not have the Faith. Both of your quotes pertain to Cardinals who are still members of the Church but are under some ecclesiastical impediment. Notice the word, "ecclesiastical". Loss of the Faith pertains to Divine law not ecclesiastical law.
You really need to put down Siscoe and Salza's book!
Try to reconcile what you think Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII meant and this quote of Pope Pius XII from his encyclical, Mystici Corporis: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
I gave you two quotes by two popes that obliterate sedevacantism, a nonsensical premise that hinders the process to expose Pope Francis officially. There is nothing left to discuss.
And I refuted you! :facepalm:
You sound like a "flat earther".........did I just say that! :roll-laugh2:
-
...by reason of ANY
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment”
I will be interested to hear your explanation of how heresy, a violation against divine law, constitutes an "ecclesiastical impediment."
-
This entire thread is chaff. It is posted on Cathinfo by a mole, to later use as evidence that Cathinfo is inhabited by "conspiracy nuts".
Chaff - radar-reflective aluminum foil strips ejected from aircraft by the ton with the intent of deceiving and defeating ground to air missles and radar.
All I want to know is the truth. Do you have any evidence from Nasa, the Government and or Military sources that have proven the curvature of the earth?
It takes so little time to get to the truth of this. Watch this video so you can know...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Thanks for the link. I am now convinced the earth is flat. Keep up the great work. :applause:
-
This entire thread is chaff. It is posted on Cathinfo by a mole, to later use as evidence that Cathinfo is inhabited by "conspiracy nuts".
Chaff - radar-reflective aluminum foil strips ejected from aircraft by the ton with the intent of deceiving and defeating ground to air missles and radar.
All I want to know is the truth. Do you have any evidence from Nasa, the Government and or Military sources that have proven the curvature of the earth?
It takes so little time to get to the truth of this. Watch this video so you can know...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Thanks for the link. I am now convinced the earth is flat. Keep up the great work. :applause:
Cool! I love this truth so much I am compelled to share! Considering the beauty and simplicity of it, how closely heaven is in relation to earth, the sun, moon and stars are lights, not worlds, close not far...we are not orphans lost in space jetting around like a space ship without apparent purpose, but creation makes sense. It isn't chaos, whirling, wobbling, it's a FOUNDATION. Like the Church. Up is up, not "out." Down is down, not at some oblique angle to the center of the earth. Christ rose for all, not down for those on the opposite side of a ball. The Great Flood makes sense, etc. Conversely, modern science is that science falsely so-called scripture speaks of. The diabolical disorientation Sr. Lucy spoke of makes physical as well as spiritual sense. I could go on and on. But you will have more fun finding out all the stuff that comes as you study it further and rejoice in creation as God designed it. Thanks for listening. I love Catholics.
-
This entire thread is chaff. It is posted on Cathinfo by a mole, to later use as evidence that Cathinfo is inhabited by "conspiracy nuts".
Chaff - radar-reflective aluminum foil strips ejected from aircraft by the ton with the intent of deceiving and defeating ground to air missles and radar.
All I want to know is the truth. Do you have any evidence from Nasa, the Government and or Military sources that have proven the curvature of the earth?
It takes so little time to get to the truth of this. Watch this video so you can know...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Thanks for the link. I am now convinced the earth is flat. Keep up the great work. :applause:
Cool! I love this truth so much I am compelled to share! Considering the beauty and simplicity of it, how closely heaven is in relation to earth, the sun, moon and stars are lights, not worlds, close not far...we are not orphans lost in space jetting around like a space ship without apparent purpose, but creation makes sense. It isn't chaos, whirling, wobbling, it's a FOUNDATION. Like the Church. Up is up, not "out." Down is down, not at some oblique angle to the center of the earth. Christ rose for all, not down for those on the opposite side of a ball. The Great Flood makes sense, etc. Conversely, modern science is that science falsely so-called scripture speaks of. The diabolical disorientation Sr. Lucy spoke of makes physical as well as spiritual sense. I could go on and on. But you will have more fun finding out all the stuff that comes as you study it further and rejoice in creation as God designed it. Thanks for listening. I love Catholics.
This flat earth concept is so simple a little child can understand it.
Matthew 18:3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
-
...by reason of ANY
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment”
I will be interested to hear your explanation of how heresy, a violation against divine law, constitutes an "ecclesiastical impediment."
Lets use "excommunication". That necessarily includes heretics booted for heresy because it says ANY excommunication.
-
This entire thread is chaff. It is posted on Cathinfo by a mole, to later use as evidence that Cathinfo is inhabited by "conspiracy nuts".
Chaff - radar-reflective aluminum foil strips ejected from aircraft by the ton with the intent of deceiving and defeating ground to air missles and radar.
All I want to know is the truth. Do you have any evidence from Nasa, the Government and or Military sources that have proven the curvature of the earth?
It takes so little time to get to the truth of this. Watch this video so you can know...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Thanks for the link. I am now convinced the earth is flat. Keep up the great work. :applause:
Cool! I love this truth so much I am compelled to share! Considering the beauty and simplicity of it, how closely heaven is in relation to earth, the sun, moon and stars are lights, not worlds, close not far...we are not orphans lost in space jetting around like a space ship without apparent purpose, but creation makes sense. It isn't chaos, whirling, wobbling, it's a FOUNDATION. Like the Church. Up is up, not "out." Down is down, not at some oblique angle to the center of the earth. Christ rose for all, not down for those on the opposite side of a ball. The Great Flood makes sense, etc. Conversely, modern science is that science falsely so-called scripture speaks of. The diabolical disorientation Sr. Lucy spoke of makes physical as well as spiritual sense. I could go on and on. But you will have more fun finding out all the stuff that comes as you study it further and rejoice in creation as God designed it. Thanks for listening. I love Catholics.
This flat earth concept is so simple a little child can understand it.
Matthew 18:3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Such enviable humility.
-
...by reason of ANY
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment”
I will be interested to hear your explanation of how heresy, a violation against divine law, constitutes an "ecclesiastical impediment."
Lets use "excommunication". That necessarily includes heretics booted for heresy because it says ANY excommunication.
“None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any
excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical
impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
ANY....OTHER......ECCLESIASTICAL
Do you get it now?
As for the flat earth nonsense, why did you ignore my Pikes Peak proof?
-
The Earth is a perfect sphere at rest at the center of the cosmos. It's not moving but it's not flat either. Venerable Bede and the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth is a sphere and that it is not moving and that all the stars and the Sun and the Moon orbit it.
Old Catholic heraldry shows it that way too. The Carthusian escutcheon for one example and the motto, "Stat Crux Dum Volvitur Orbis".
The heliocentrics from Newton's time are the one's who have it deformed with supposedly "squeazed-in polar caps" and an "equatorial bulge", from "gravity" so-called. But it does not have "squeazed-in polar caps" or an "equatorial bulge" at all.
From Aristotle and others the circle and the sphere are regarded as signs of perfection, etc. The horizons are all circular and symmetrical. And space is 3-D. Any circle balanced and filled out in in 3-d becomes a sphere etc.
-
...by reason of ANY
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment”
I will be interested to hear your explanation of how heresy, a violation against divine law, constitutes an "ecclesiastical impediment."
Lets use "excommunication". That necessarily includes heretics booted for heresy because it says ANY excommunication.
“None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any
excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical
impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
ANY....OTHER......ECCLESIASTICAL
Do you get it now?
As for the flat earth nonsense, why did you ignore my Pikes Peak proof?
No, I do not get it. That statement says NONE may be excluded from the active or passive election of the pope. That means once the election begins, no one can be excluded from electing or being elected.
As for flat earth response, why did you not view the video? Pikes Peak is no proof once you've seen how things really work.
-
The Earth is a perfect sphere at rest at the center of the cosmos. It's not moving but it's not flat either. Venerable Bede and the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth is a sphere and that it is not moving and that all the stars and the Sun and the Moon orbit it.
Old Catholic heraldry shows it that way too. The Carthusian escutcheon for one example and the motto, "Stat Crux Dum Volvitur Orbis".
The heliocentrics from Newton's time are the one's who have it deformed with supposedly "squeazed-in polar caps" and an "equatorial bulge", from "gravity" so-called. But it does not have "squeazed-in polar caps" or an "equatorial bulge" at all.
From Aristotle and others the circle and the sphere are regarded as signs of perfection, etc. The horizons are all circular and symmetrical. And space is 3-D. Any circle balanced and filled out in in 3-d becomes a sphere etc.
Saying earth is a perfect sphere at rest at the center of the cosmos is a statement unfounded in fact. And what Aristotle said about the sphere cannot stand in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary. Please view the video to see the true scientific proof of the reality of creation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
-
...by reason of ANY
excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment”
I will be interested to hear your explanation of how heresy, a violation against divine law, constitutes an "ecclesiastical impediment."
Lets use "excommunication". That necessarily includes heretics booted for heresy because it says ANY excommunication.
“None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any
excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical
impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff”
(Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).
ANY....OTHER......ECCLESIASTICAL
Do you get it now?
As for the flat earth nonsense, why did you ignore my Pikes Peak proof?
No, I do not get it. That statement says NONE may be excluded from the active or passive election of the pope. That means once the election begins, no one can be excluded from electing or being elected.
As for flat earth response, why did you not view the video? Pikes Peak is no proof once you've seen how things really work.
1. My advice for you is to stop leading souls into error by your inaccurate interpretations. Remember, you are accountable for every word! "NONE BY PRETEXT or REASON of"......NOT solely NONE!
2. I did waste about 5 minutes of my time on that nonsense. If you can't refute my Pikes Peak example in YOUR own words, you lost, period.
-
Mark Twain so aptly described the problem with stubborn belief and refusal to learn when he said:
"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circuмstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself."
I hope to prove Mark Twain wrong.
Those pushing the heliocentric, sun-worshiping model are necessarily Luciferian dictators bent on controlling the masses. Consider the famous heliocentrists: Copernicus was a sun worshiper and womanizer; Keplar dabbled in the occult and likely murdered the geocentric Tycho Brahe and plagiarized his writings. Galileo was also a plagiarist and gave the great St. Robert Bellarmine quite the headache in 1633 when he defied the Church and scripture in favor of his occult beliefs. Einstein was a womanizer, anti-Catholic child-abandoning monster. How interesting that these men are heralded throughout the centuries as the "fathers of modern science". And so they are.
Today, we have the Godless NASA of this same, (r)evolutionary science: the most controlling, lying, manipulative syndicate spending in 50 years almost 20 billion dollars just to blow up rockets and peddle CGI images to the unsuspecting public. These GLOBALISTS are indoctrinating you and your kids. Take the time to look into the flat earth, NASA, the hoaxes it perpetrates and find peace in creation as God made it. The earth is flat and stationary as scripture described it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Ev6f_vS7c
-
Mark Twain so aptly described the problem with stubborn belief and refusal to learn when he said:
"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circuмstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself."
I hope to prove Mark Twain wrong.
Those pushing the heliocentric, sun-worshiping model are necessarily Luciferian dictators bent on controlling the masses. Consider the famous heliocentrists: Copernicus was a sun worshiper and womanizer; Keplar dabbled in the occult and likely murdered the geocentric Tycho Brahe and plagiarized his writings. Galileo was also a plagiarist and gave the great St. Robert Bellarmine quite the headache in 1633 when he defied the Church and scripture in favor of his occult beliefs. Einstein was a womanizer, anti-Catholic child-abandoning monster. How interesting that these men are heralded throughout the centuries as the "fathers of modern science". And so they are.
Today, we have the Godless NASA of this same, (r)evolutionary science: the most controlling, lying, manipulative syndicate spending in 50 years almost 20 billion dollars just to blow up rockets and peddle CGI images to the unsuspecting public. These GLOBALISTS are indoctrinating you and your kids. Take the time to look into the flat earth, NASA, the hoaxes it perpetrates and find peace in creation as God made it. The earth is flat and stationary as scripture described it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Ev6f_vS7c
Please, just explain to me in a logical fashion, in your own words, why one sees the summit of Pikes Peak first and then the gradual exposition of it's base when one travels on I 70 going west from the Kansas border? If you can't you lost the argument.
BTW: I homeschool and teach the geo model. Also,
-
Mark Twain so aptly described the problem with stubborn belief and refusal to learn when he said:
"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circuмstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself."
I hope to prove Mark Twain wrong.
Those pushing the heliocentric, sun-worshiping model are necessarily Luciferian dictators bent on controlling the masses. Consider the famous heliocentrists: Copernicus was a sun worshiper and womanizer; Keplar dabbled in the occult and likely murdered the geocentric Tycho Brahe and plagiarized his writings. Galileo was also a plagiarist and gave the great St. Robert Bellarmine quite the headache in 1633 when he defied the Church and scripture in favor of his occult beliefs. Einstein was a womanizer, anti-Catholic child-abandoning monster. How interesting that these men are heralded throughout the centuries as the "fathers of modern science". And so they are.
Today, we have the Godless NASA of this same, (r)evolutionary science: the most controlling, lying, manipulative syndicate spending in 50 years almost 20 billion dollars just to blow up rockets and peddle CGI images to the unsuspecting public. These GLOBALISTS are indoctrinating you and your kids. Take the time to look into the flat earth, NASA, the hoaxes it perpetrates and find peace in creation as God made it. The earth is flat and stationary as scripture described it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Ev6f_vS7c
Please, just explain to me in a logical fashion, in your own words, why one sees the summit of Pikes Peak first and then the gradual exposition of it's base when one travels on I 70 going west from the Kansas border? If you can't you lost the argument.
BTW: I homeschool and teach the geo model. Also,
In fact, if you take a camera with a zoom lens, you will see the entire mountain, base and all. Your eyes simply do not afford the same luxury.
-
Mark Twain so aptly described the problem with stubborn belief and refusal to learn when he said:
"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circuмstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself."
I hope to prove Mark Twain wrong.
Those pushing the heliocentric, sun-worshiping model are necessarily Luciferian dictators bent on controlling the masses. Consider the famous heliocentrists: Copernicus was a sun worshiper and womanizer; Keplar dabbled in the occult and likely murdered the geocentric Tycho Brahe and plagiarized his writings. Galileo was also a plagiarist and gave the great St. Robert Bellarmine quite the headache in 1633 when he defied the Church and scripture in favor of his occult beliefs. Einstein was a womanizer, anti-Catholic child-abandoning monster. How interesting that these men are heralded throughout the centuries as the "fathers of modern science". And so they are.
Today, we have the Godless NASA of this same, (r)evolutionary science: the most controlling, lying, manipulative syndicate spending in 50 years almost 20 billion dollars just to blow up rockets and peddle CGI images to the unsuspecting public. These GLOBALISTS are indoctrinating you and your kids. Take the time to look into the flat earth, NASA, the hoaxes it perpetrates and find peace in creation as God made it. The earth is flat and stationary as scripture described it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Ev6f_vS7c
Please, just explain to me in a logical fashion, in your own words, why one sees the summit of Pikes Peak first and then the gradual exposition of it's base when one travels on I 70 going west from the Kansas border? If you can't you lost the argument.
BTW: I homeschool and teach the geo model. Also,
In fact, if you take a camera with a zoom lens, you will see the entire mountain, base and all. Your eyes simply do not afford the same luxury.
Thanks for the exchange .....I will say an Ave Maria for you.
-
You said:
1. My advice for you is to stop leading souls into error by your inaccurate interpretations. Remember, you are accountable for every word! "NONE BY PRETEXT or REASON of"......NOT solely NONE!
Actually, it is "none". And the Pope adds, to be certain it is understood that NONE dare even DREAM of interfering with a conclave, he includes "by pretext, or reason of..." stating every possible eventuality with these possibilities.
Your interpretation suggests that the statement that actually says "none of the cardinals" thus possibly means, "some" or perhaps even just one, exclusion. That is illogical. None is none. There is no barring of voters, nor candidates, from assuming office of Pope once the cardinals begin the process. They call it pretext because any politicking is not tolerated. God handles it at that point, protects the Church if a bad guy gets in, He allows for a council to remove whoever sneaked in to do his own will as some have done. Otherwise, the process can be stalled ad infinitum as usurping cardinals could point fingers and yell "heretic!" every time they don't get what they want.
Popes have done plenty of damage in the past, of that there is no doubt. To suggest (as sedes assert) that you know personally, or that history somehow proves, that none of the bad popes were heretics, is so ridiculous as to suggest malice. A person after his own will to the detriment of the Church is by definition, in some kind of heresy, for heresy means "to choose". Manifest, material, formal, whatever the brand of heresy, it remains for the Church to make the final proclamation on such a man accused, because the verdict affects the entire world of people. Without that verdict, you only have varying opposing opinions. Without the Church's final say, the laity cannot possibly be sure what to think or who to follow. See today's Church.
-
Mark Twain so aptly described the problem with stubborn belief and refusal to learn when he said:
"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circuмstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself."
I hope to prove Mark Twain wrong.
Those pushing the heliocentric, sun-worshiping model are necessarily Luciferian dictators bent on controlling the masses. Consider the famous heliocentrists: Copernicus was a sun worshiper and womanizer; Keplar dabbled in the occult and likely murdered the geocentric Tycho Brahe and plagiarized his writings. Galileo was also a plagiarist and gave the great St. Robert Bellarmine quite the headache in 1633 when he defied the Church and scripture in favor of his occult beliefs. Einstein was a womanizer, anti-Catholic child-abandoning monster. How interesting that these men are heralded throughout the centuries as the "fathers of modern science". And so they are.
Today, we have the Godless NASA of this same, (r)evolutionary science: the most controlling, lying, manipulative syndicate spending in 50 years almost 20 billion dollars just to blow up rockets and peddle CGI images to the unsuspecting public. These GLOBALISTS are indoctrinating you and your kids. Take the time to look into the flat earth, NASA, the hoaxes it perpetrates and find peace in creation as God made it. The earth is flat and stationary as scripture described it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Ev6f_vS7c
Please, just explain to me in a logical fashion, in your own words, why one sees the summit of Pikes Peak first and then the gradual exposition of it's base when one travels on I 70 going west from the Kansas border? If you can't you lost the argument.
BTW: I homeschool and teach the geo model. Also,
In fact, if you take a camera with a zoom lens, you will see the entire mountain, base and all. Your eyes simply do not afford the same luxury.
Thanks for the exchange .....I will say an Ave Maria for you.
Thank you! I will do the same for you. God bless
-
(http://flatterus.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/wp-1457560189150.png)
-
Aryzia,
I was going to just drop this subject as I saw that you were firmly tied to this erroneous belief as if it were a dogma. I decided to give it one more try after I remembered that I have a friend who lives in Australia. I asked her to take a picture of the full moon for me. Below is the reason why:
I am waiting on her photo, but this should do in the meantime.
-
This morning at 6AM I tried to get a picture of the full (or close to it) moon. I couldn't get a clear shot. I then looked on the web for an image of the moon that matched the one I saw. I live in the northeast U.S.. The picture on the right matches what I saw:
-
Aryzia,
I was going to just drop this subject as I saw that you were firmly tied to this erroneous belief as if it were a dogma.
Aryzia is correct: Earth is flat.
-
Aryzia, how the hell do you get from flat earth mumbo-jumbo to sedevacantism and make this the 85th thread on sedevacantism in forever? Are you on drugs?
Yeah Aryzia! You are on drugs, definitely. And you, me, and JezusDeKoning are not Jews pretending to disagree with each other so the goyim don't suspect we're in cahoots.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Jew.
-
This morning at 6AM I tried to get a picture of the full (or close to it) moon. I couldn't get a clear shot. I then looked on the web for an image of the moon that matched the one I saw. I live in the northeast U.S.. The picture on the right matches what I saw:
I've posted an excellent link to a video in this thread that will answer most, if not all questions. Please refer to it first and once you've seen it we can talk. Please take the time.
-
Aryzia, how the hell do you get from flat earth mumbo-jumbo to sedevacantism and make this the 85th thread on sedevacantism in forever? Are you on drugs?
Yeah Aryzia! You are on drugs, definitely. And you, me, and JezusDeKoning are not Jews pretending to disagree with each other so the goyim don't suspect we're in cahoots.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Jew.
I've posted an excellent link to a video in this thread that will answer most, if not all questions. Please refer to it before you toss out rude comments.
-
A good article refuting the flat Earth theory from a Protestant:
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/is-the-earth-flat/?utm_source=articlesmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_content=featurebutton&utm_campaign=20160528&mc_cid=d590eb78c9&mc_eid=30cfe2886a
-
A good article refuting the flat Earth theory from a Protestant:
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/is-the-earth-flat/?utm_source=articlesmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_content=featurebutton&utm_campaign=20160528&mc_cid=d590eb78c9&mc_eid=30cfe2886a
Not one of these so called proofs is viable. But I didn't expect much from a Protestant. Any reasonable person knows that you cannot judge the argument until you've seen both sides. The answer to the question is not to approach this subject so as to prove all the things you've been taught already, but to look at the other side and determine what it has to say. Once done, there is no question about what is true. There is not one proof for round moving earth, but rather, all proofs point to flat geocentric earth.
-
"It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth"
Isaiah 40:22
-
Our Lady of La Salette
Water and fire will give the earth's globe convulsions and terrible earthquakes which will swallow up mountains, cities, etc..
-
You got to be kidding me! I thought this silly thread finally went dead!
-
"It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth"
Isaiah 40:22
The translation is literally "circle" of the earth, not globe. A circle is not a globe.
-
You got to be kidding me! I thought this silly thread finally went dead!
Had you viewed the video that started this thread, you would not be saying such things. But like a Protestant that will not defend his faith to a Catholic because he will not view the evidence, you will suffer longer from your indoctrination.
-
You got to be kidding me! I thought this silly thread finally went dead!
Had you viewed the video that started this thread, you would not be saying such things. But like a Protestant that will not defend his faith to a Catholic because he will not view the evidence, you will suffer longer from your indoctrination.
Well I did watch a large portion of the video and everything that he claims as proof is easly refuted. I really feel sorry for you you are so brainwashed that you don't even realize it. In any event, I tried to no avail.
Jonestown anyone????
-
You got to be kidding me! I thought this silly thread finally went dead!
Had you viewed the video that started this thread, you would not be saying such things. But like a Protestant that will not defend his faith to a Catholic because he will not view the evidence, you will suffer longer from your indoctrination.
Well I did watch a large portion of the video and everything that he claims as proof is easly refuted. I really feel sorry for you you are so brainwashed that you don't even realize it. In any event, I tried to no avail.
Jonestown anyone????
Clearly, you have not investigated this issue at all, a matter integral to the Faith since it involves the veracity of Scripture, Church Fathers and papal statements. If you have to ask where and what and how, you've already proven you have not indulged this topic to any degree and prove yourself ignorant.
-
You got to be kidding me! I thought this silly thread finally went dead!
Had you viewed the video that started this thread, you would not be saying such things. But like a Protestant that will not defend his faith to a Catholic because he will not view the evidence, you will suffer longer from your indoctrination.
Well I did watch a large portion of the video and everything that he claims as proof is easly refuted. I really feel sorry for you you are so brainwashed that you don't even realize it. In any event, I tried to no avail.
Jonestown anyone????
Clearly, you have not investigated this issue at all, a matter integral to the Faith since it involves the veracity of Scripture, Church Fathers and papal statements. If you have to ask where and what and how, you've already proven you have not indulged this topic to any degree and prove yourself ignorant.
LOL....when facts are presented to you, your only argument is "watch the video".
That guy who did the video must be having a great laugh at your expense.
-
Let's keep this extremely simple. Flat Earth Theory absolutely cannot exist with Longitude and Latitude as we know it and have navigated by for hundreds of years. This is especially true of the southern hemisphere which is necessarily vastly expanded to fit this bizarre claim. The distortion is just incredible even before you get to Antarctica.
A longitude/latitude accurate version of flat earth holds zero resemblance to a circle. Mostly you get a sunburst effect. If you attempt to preserve the land masses, you end up with something like an orange peel. No matter how you cut it, the earth would have so many gaping chasms that sea navigation would be rendered impossible.
-
You got to be kidding me! I thought this silly thread finally went dead!
Had you viewed the video that started this thread, you would not be saying such things. But like a Protestant that will not defend his faith to a Catholic because he will not view the evidence, you will suffer longer from your indoctrination.
Well I did watch a large portion of the video and everything that he claims as proof is easly refuted. I really feel sorry for you you are so brainwashed that you don't even realize it. In any event, I tried to no avail.
Jonestown anyone????
Clearly, you have not investigated this issue at all, a matter integral to the Faith since it involves the veracity of Scripture, Church Fathers and papal statements. If you have to ask where and what and how, you've already proven you have not indulged this topic to any degree and prove yourself ignorant.
LOL....when facts are presented to you, your only argument is "watch the video".
That guy who did the video must be having a great laugh at your expense.
I have not seen a single fact.
-
Let's keep this extremely simple. Flat Earth Theory absolutely cannot exist with Longitude and Latitude as we know it and have navigated by for hundreds of years. This is especially true of the southern hemisphere which is necessarily vastly expanded to fit this bizarre claim. The distortion is just incredible even before you get to Antarctica.
A longitude/latitude accurate version of flat earth holds zero resemblance to a circle. Mostly you get a sunburst effect. If you attempt to preserve the land masses, you end up with something like an orange peel. No matter how you cut it, the earth would have so many gaping chasms that sea navigation would be rendered impossible.
Seriously? So, you use an assumed theory to disprove another theory? C'mon now. That is not the Catholic way. None of the Early Church Fathers embraced Heliocentricism. All were Geocentric. Let me ask, where is the curve?
IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circuмference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:
FIG. 1.
Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every
p. 10
mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1 The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles.
This means that the earth must curve away from one standing "at the top" of the globe or at any one position (assuming ridiculously that there is no "top" but that every thing is relative) and the horizon will drop below the line of sight, but it doesn't drop. Even when looking out from a mountain, the horizon remains level with the eye. The horizon remains level with the eye even when in a plane. That is impossible if there were curvature.
According to the science and the mathematical formula above, here's how much curvature must exist for the earth to be a globe...
At 1 mile, the earth should curve away 6 ft.
At 10 miles it would be 66ft.
At 90 miles it would be 5400 ft or > a mile
No curvature like this is ever seen.
Earth is not a globe. Heliocentrism is false.
It is well-known that science has been at war with Christianity through the centuries. Protestant scientist, Gerardus Bouw explains to what degreee. "Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution [i.e., the idea that 'the earth moves and turns'] spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...It is reported that Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance...It is thus a small step to total rejection of the Bible and the precepts of morality and law taught therein."
Many people believe Copernican science has proven the earth to be round (just one aspect of heliocentrism) largely because they think they have seen round earth from space. For now, there is no concrete proof NASA messes with photos and videos, but the study of their photos and cgi videos bring many questions.
Please provide me with one, just one, non - CGI video of the ball earth spinning in space. With all those telescopes, Hubble and satellites, going to the moon, one would expect to see at least ONE video of earth. Not even a single photo of earth exists. All are doctored images, as NASA readily admits.
Earth is not a globe, it does not spin, it does not move.
Heliocentricity, once rejected by society at large has certainly become widely accepted, even to the point of scorn, for those that do not believe it. With its roots traced back to Kaballah, Jєωιѕн mysticism is the creator of that false science. New Age spirituality, illuminism, and kabbalistic teachings have become popular in modern culture, yet how few realize that heliocentricity was the science behind those religions? While it was bandied about throughout the centuries, even considered possible by some saints, heliocentrism was really only accepted in elite learning circles of gnosticism until Galileo came along in the 1600's. From there, the development of heliocentrism from fable into accepted fact is well-docuмented in the book, The Pontifual Decrees Concerning the Motion of the Earth.
Earth is not a globe.
-
Let's keep this extremely simple. Flat Earth Theory absolutely cannot exist with Longitude and Latitude as we know it and have navigated by for hundreds of years. This is especially true of the southern hemisphere which is necessarily vastly expanded to fit this bizarre claim. The distortion is just incredible even before you get to Antarctica.
A longitude/latitude accurate version of flat earth holds zero resemblance to a circle. Mostly you get a sunburst effect. If you attempt to preserve the land masses, you end up with something like an orange peel. No matter how you cut it, the earth would have so many gaping chasms that sea navigation would be rendered impossible.
Seriously? So, you use an assumed theory to disprove another theory? C'mon now. That is not the Catholic way. None of the Early Church Fathers embraced Heliocentricism. All were Geocentric. Let me ask, where is the curve?
IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circuмference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:
FIG. 1.
Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every
p. 10
mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1 The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles.
This means that the earth must curve away from one standing "at the top" of the globe or at any one position (assuming ridiculously that there is no "top" but that every thing is relative) and the horizon will drop below the line of sight, but it doesn't drop. Even when looking out from a mountain, the horizon remains level with the eye. The horizon remains level with the eye even when in a plane. That is impossible if there were curvature.
According to the science and the mathematical formula above, here's how much curvature must exist for the earth to be a globe...
At 1 mile, the earth should curve away 6 ft.
At 10 miles it would be 66ft.
At 90 miles it would be 5400 ft or > a mile
No curvature like this is ever seen.
Earth is not a globe. Heliocentrism is false.
It is well-known that science has been at war with Christianity through the centuries. Protestant scientist, Gerardus Bouw explains to what degreee. "Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution [i.e., the idea that 'the earth moves and turns'] spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...It is reported that Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance...It is thus a small step to total rejection of the Bible and the precepts of morality and law taught therein."
Many people believe Copernican science has proven the earth to be round (just one aspect of heliocentrism) largely because they think they have seen round earth from space. For now, there is no concrete proof NASA messes with photos and videos, but the study of their photos and cgi videos bring many questions.
Please provide me with one, just one, non - CGI video of the ball earth spinning in space. With all those telescopes, Hubble and satellites, going to the moon, one would expect to see at least ONE video of earth. Not even a single photo of earth exists. All are doctored images, as NASA readily admits.
Earth is not a globe, it does not spin, it does not move.
Heliocentricity, once rejected by society at large has certainly become widely accepted, even to the point of scorn, for those that do not believe it. With its roots traced back to Kaballah, Jєωιѕн mysticism is the creator of that false science. New Age spirituality, illuminism, and kabbalistic teachings have become popular in modern culture, yet how few realize that heliocentricity was the science behind those religions? While it was bandied about throughout the centuries, even considered possible by some saints, heliocentrism was really only accepted in elite learning circles of gnosticism until Galileo came along in the 1600's. From there, the development of heliocentrism from fable into accepted fact is well-docuмented in the book, The Pontifual Decrees Concerning the Motion of the Earth.
Earth is not a globe.
LOL, wowee. Weather patterns! Are you telling me Flat Earthers are now chasing clouds to prove their ideas?
:jester:
This is pure propaganda, and you are a propagandist. I hope you're being paid well because looking this stupid is a steep investment.
There is nothing assumed about Longitude and Latitude. They've been accepted tools for mapping and navigation since long before satellite imaging ever came to be. People from all classes and cultures use it. It's not a conspiracy. It is an insurmountable problem for you and your kind because you absolutely positively need all the oceans and landmasses to add so much extra surface area that it would be impossible to navigate or even drive from say Perth to Sidney without coming up extremely short.
Pro tip: Before GPS or CGI there were actual physical maps people had to use to get around and if the miles never added up, they'd only be good for toilet paper.
Every single depiction I've seen of a flat earth map has South Africa almost twice as wide as is normal and Australia as wider than the entire North American Continent which is absolutely preposterous and provably false.
(http://schr.work/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/north-america-australia-flat-earth-map-comparison1.jpg)
Longitude and Latitude are a steel cage for this pet "theory" It's got no wings and it's feet are stapled to the perch. Now if I were you, I'd start trying to figure out a way to factor in all that added longitude before you decide to respond. You are sounding like a parrot past his expiration date.
-
Let's keep this extremely simple. Flat Earth Theory absolutely cannot exist with Longitude and Latitude as we know it and have navigated by for hundreds of years. This is especially true of the southern hemisphere which is necessarily vastly expanded to fit this bizarre claim. The distortion is just incredible even before you get to Antarctica.
A longitude/latitude accurate version of flat earth holds zero resemblance to a circle. Mostly you get a sunburst effect. If you attempt to preserve the land masses, you end up with something like an orange peel. No matter how you cut it, the earth would have so many gaping chasms that sea navigation would be rendered impossible.
Seriously? So, you use an assumed theory to disprove another theory? C'mon now. That is not the Catholic way. None of the Early Church Fathers embraced Heliocentricism. All were Geocentric. Let me ask, where is the curve?
IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circuмference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:
FIG. 1.
Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every
p. 10
mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1 The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles.
This means that the earth must curve away from one standing "at the top" of the globe or at any one position (assuming ridiculously that there is no "top" but that every thing is relative) and the horizon will drop below the line of sight, but it doesn't drop. Even when looking out from a mountain, the horizon remains level with the eye. The horizon remains level with the eye even when in a plane. That is impossible if there were curvature.
According to the science and the mathematical formula above, here's how much curvature must exist for the earth to be a globe...
At 1 mile, the earth should curve away 6 ft.
At 10 miles it would be 66ft.
At 90 miles it would be 5400 ft or > a mile
No curvature like this is ever seen.
Earth is not a globe. Heliocentrism is false.
It is well-known that science has been at war with Christianity through the centuries. Protestant scientist, Gerardus Bouw explains to what degreee. "Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution [i.e., the idea that 'the earth moves and turns'] spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...It is reported that Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance...It is thus a small step to total rejection of the Bible and the precepts of morality and law taught therein."
Many people believe Copernican science has proven the earth to be round (just one aspect of heliocentrism) largely because they think they have seen round earth from space. For now, there is no concrete proof NASA messes with photos and videos, but the study of their photos and cgi videos bring many questions.
Please provide me with one, just one, non - CGI video of the ball earth spinning in space. With all those telescopes, Hubble and satellites, going to the moon, one would expect to see at least ONE video of earth. Not even a single photo of earth exists. All are doctored images, as NASA readily admits.
Earth is not a globe, it does not spin, it does not move.
Heliocentricity, once rejected by society at large has certainly become widely accepted, even to the point of scorn, for those that do not believe it. With its roots traced back to Kaballah, Jєωιѕн mysticism is the creator of that false science. New Age spirituality, illuminism, and kabbalistic teachings have become popular in modern culture, yet how few realize that heliocentricity was the science behind those religions? While it was bandied about throughout the centuries, even considered possible by some saints, heliocentrism was really only accepted in elite learning circles of gnosticism until Galileo came along in the 1600's. From there, the development of heliocentrism from fable into accepted fact is well-docuмented in the book, The Pontifual Decrees Concerning the Motion of the Earth.
Earth is not a globe.
LOL, wowee. Weather patterns! Are you telling me Flat Earthers are now chasing clouds to prove their ideas?
:jester:
This is pure propaganda, and you are a propagandist.
Nope.
I hope you're being paid well because looking this stupid is a steep investment.
Sneering and derision do not work here.
There is nothing assumed about Longitude and Latitude. They've been accepted tools for mapping and navigation since long before satellite imaging ever came to be. People from all classes and cultures use it. It's not a conspiracy. It is an insurmountable problem for you and your kind because you absolutely positively need all the oceans and landmasses to add so much extra surface area that it would be impossible to navigate or even drive from say Perth to Sidney without coming up extremely short.
Sadly, there is so much to say but with this attitude of wanting to blather on about what you think you know, there is little possibility for you to learn.
Pro tip: Before GPS or CGI there were actual physical maps people had to use to get around and if the miles never added up, they'd only be good for toilet paper.
Every single depiction I've seen of a flat earth map has South Africa almost twice as wide as is normal and Australia as wider than the entire North American Continent which is absolutely preposterous and provably false.
Ha ha. Now this is funny. When even the most science will (quietly) admit that the southern regions are way larger than the northern ones, what you said here is provably false.
(http://schr.work/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/north-america-australia-flat-earth-map-comparison1.jpg)
Longitude and Latitude are a steel cage for this pet "theory" It's got no wings and it's feet are stapled to the perch. Now if I were you, I'd start trying to figure out a way to factor in all that added longitude before you decide to respond. You are sounding like a parrot past his expiration date.[/quot
Longitude and latitude can work on flat earth. Unfortunately for you, you refuse to learn and to observe an argument from both sides before coming to a reasonable conclusion.
-
Water does not cleave to the outside of a ball while spinning over a thousand mph. The very notion is so preposterous only an indoctrinated modern thinker fond of chaos could believe it.
Water surfaces do not curve. Earth is not a ball.
Matthew 24:24 (RHE) For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.
1 Timothy 6:19-21Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
19 To lay up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the true life.
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called.
21 Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
-
Water does not cleave to the outside of a ball while spinning over a thousand mph. The very notion is so preposterous only an indoctrinated modern thinker fond of chaos could believe it.
Water surfaces do not curve. Earth is not a ball.
Matthew 24:24 (RHE) For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.
1 Timothy 6:19-21Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
19 To lay up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the true life.
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called.
21 Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
Save the cartoonish arguments and misplaced Bible quotes for after you explain where all the extra longitude is.
-
How did an argument about the flatness of the earth suddenly become about geocentrism? Those are two rather different discussions...
Incidentally, (http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg), water surfaces do in fact curve.
-
Water does not cleave to the outside of a ball while spinning over a thousand mph. The very notion is so preposterous only an indoctrinated modern thinker fond of chaos could believe it.
Water surfaces do not curve. Earth is not a ball.
Matthew 24:24 (RHE) For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.
1 Timothy 6:19-21Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
19 To lay up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the true life.
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called.
21 Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
Save the cartoonish arguments and misplaced Bible quotes for after you explain where all the extra longitude is.
Why do I have to save the cartoons yet you accept the cartoons from NASA depicting their indoctrination of a globe? You have no real proof earth is a globe because not one picture of earth from space is authentic. All pictures of ball earth are cartoons. Still waiting for authentic video footage of spinning earth. My bible quotes are completely useful here because you trust in science falsely so-called against scriptural warning. I'll give you an explanation for lat/long on a flat map, but you have to explain where the curvature of your ball went.
-
How did an argument about the flatness of the earth suddenly become about geocentrism? Those are two rather different discussions...
Incidentally, (http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg), water surfaces do in fact curve.
Geocentrism is flat earth. The ridiculous modern notion currently forwarded with ball earth hanging motionless in space, a half heliocentric version riddled with contradictions, is a premise much like the indult mass. Ridiculous. Centuries of geocentrism necessarily include a flat, stationary earth. Read Cosmos' book, Christian Topography online for free. Cosmos is a 6th century Catholic monk explaining why flat earth is essential to the Faith because it reflects the truth about God's creation. Besides traversing the earth himself, Cosmos demonstrates why scripture is necessarily describing a flat earth. Chapter 4 is the quick reference. Heliocentrism, the pagan Kabbalistic teaching of Pythagoras is nothing less than the recreation of the world by Satan who has nothing of his own and who has to build an entire new world in order to usher in the Antichrist.
Surface tension of water, such as in a glass or droplet remains always only under certain conditions and only with very small amounts of water. This cannot be duplicated on a large scale.
Thanks for your reply
-
I see we have Pfeifferites here. :jester:
-
I see we have Pfeifferites here. :jester:
Father Pfeiffer believes earth is stationary, but doesn't believe its flat. He is mistaken.
-
water does cleave to a ball spinning at 1000mph, if that ball is the size of the earth. Each point on the earth, though traversing space at 1000mph, is only moving 1/24th of the circuмference of the earth in one hour. That would be like a smaller ball moving only 1/24th of its circuмference in an hour, and surely the water would stay on the ball. Also, you're not taking gravity into account, which the water on the earth is subject to.
-
water does cleave to a ball spinning at 1000mph, if that ball is the size of the earth. Each point on the earth, though traversing space at 1000mph, is only moving 1/24th of the circuмference of the earth in one hour. That would be like a smaller ball moving only 1/24th of its circuмference in an hour, and surely the water would stay on the ball. Also, you're not taking gravity into account, which the water on the earth is subject to.
Firstly, all modern science teaches that earth spins at 1000 mph at the equator. That's not my theory, but it IS theirs. There is no speed at which water would cling to a spinning ball anyway. Not of any size. Not even the spin were 1 mph. Try it with a basket ball. Its a guaranteed fail. Gravity is a joke. Scientists all over the world are discarding the theory because it has more holes than swiss cheese. Look up gravity hoax on youtube. Here's an article on how public opinion about gravity is changing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/02/08/834979/-Shock-Gravity-hoax-exposed-by-Fox-News
-
water does cleave to a ball spinning at 1000mph, if that ball is the size of the earth. Each point on the earth, though traversing space at 1000mph, is only moving 1/24th of the circuмference of the earth in one hour. That would be like a smaller ball moving only 1/24th of its circuмference in an hour, and surely the water would stay on the ball. Also, you're not taking gravity into account, which the water on the earth is subject to.
Firstly, all modern science teaches that earth spins at 1000 mph at the equator. That's not my theory, but it IS theirs. There is no speed at which water would cling to a spinning ball anyway. Not of any size. Not even the spin were 1 mph. Try it with a basket ball. Its a guaranteed fail. Gravity is a joke. Scientists all over the world are discarding the theory because it has more holes than swiss cheese. Look up gravity hoax on youtube. Here's an article on how public opinion about gravity is changing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/02/08/834979/-Shock-Gravity-hoax-exposed-by-Fox-News
the rate in miles per hour of a basketball(standard circuмference is 30 inches) traveling at 1/24th of its circuмference per hour is .0000198 miles per hour. I think the water would stay on the ball at that rate, apart from gravity causing the water to drip off it. But you don't believe in gravity, so something else is causing the water to drip downwards off the ball. It cannot be the rotation of the ball since that direction would be perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Try it. So no gravity and no centripetal force. Why would the water come off? well i guess we'll need to wait for your next post on the science fiction thread.
-
This sort of thread should not be allowed. A four or five page thread on patent nonsense might be used to make good Catholics looks like fools.
-
This sort of thread should not be allowed. A four or five page thread on patent nonsense might be used to make good Catholics looks like fools.
God has revealed the earth is flat. It is you who looks like a fool.
-
If you can't get it together on longitude/latitude, nobody's going to bother with your mathematical contrivances. Nobody will anyway, but let's continue...
At 1 mile, the earth should curve away 6 ft.
At 10 miles it would be 66ft.
At 90 miles it would be 5400 ft or > a mile
No curvature like this is ever seen.
That's probably because the curve is 7.98 inches per mile and you can't be relied upon to even copy and paste your info correctly. Tell your Russian handlers that the legacy of Fomenko will not be honored here.
Sneering and derision do not work here.
It's precisely what your rejection of reality and common sense merits.
Sadly, there is so much to say but with this attitude of wanting to blather on about what you think you know, there is little possibility for you to learn.
This garbage you're spewing is propaganda with no foundation in truth, observation, or mathematics. Get lost.
Every single depiction I've seen of a flat earth map has South Africa almost twice as wide as is normal and Australia as wider than the entire North American Continent which is absolutely preposterous and provably false.
Ha ha. Now this is funny. When even the most science will (quietly) admit that the southern regions are way larger than the northern ones, what you said here is provably false.
Then... prove it! Try starting with actual scientists and measurements!
Longitude and latitude can work on flat earth. Unfortunately for you, you refuse to learn and to observe an argument from both sides before coming to a reasonable conclusion.
Oooh, I can't wait to see your hastily provided non-solution!
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9313)
Way to go! Bravo! Bellisimo! :applause:
There's just one tiny problem... that's not even accurate to your model. Not only are you a damnable liar but a mediocre one at that. Equirectangular projection maps stretch out both poles instead of just the south pole according to your sorry excuse of a theory. They have no navigational value in the northern or southern regions.
-
What the actual map of the world looks like in detail, I do not know. But that isn't a reason to discard the piles of proof that earth is flat.
-
What the actual map of the world looks like in detail, I do not know. But that isn't a reason to discard the piles of proof that earth is flat.
You better figure it out aryzia! For someone with the gall to tell us we're all wrong about the shape of the Earth, you are fatally short on details. Get it together.
-
Your heliocentric pagan belief in NASA's evolution indoctrination is far worse than anything I do not know regarding a very extensive topic. If you wanted to know more, I have literally tons of proofs for flat earth. You have zero proofs for your pagan notion.
-
Your heliocentric pagan belief in NASA's evolution indoctrination is far worse than anything I do not know regarding a very extensive topic. If you wanted to know more, I have literally tons of proofs for flat earth. You have zero proofs for your pagan notion.
On the summer solstice the sun is directly overhead in Alexandria, Egypt at noon. The vertical structures cast no shadow. In cities a few hundred kilometers away at this exact same time, they cast a shadow of about 7 degrees. If the sun's rays are parallel to the earth(which they are at that distance), then how can the earth be flat when obelisks in city A casts shadows and ones in city B do not? They can't. Therefore, the earth is curved. Quod erat demonstrandum.
-
LoL, this guy's argument has been reduced to threats of proof. Longitude and Latitude will kill the Flat Earth every single time. Good going on the shadows angle, though. Maybe he'll get around to refuting it once he's done swimming in his vault of proofs, Scrooge McDuck style.
(http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/37800000/Scrooge-McDuck-gif-mickey-and-friends-37815657-245-188.gif)
Your heliocentric pagan belief in NASA's evolution indoctrination is far worse than anything I do not know regarding a very extensive topic. If you wanted to know more, I have literally tons of proofs for flat earth. You have zero proofs for your pagan notion.
I look forward to more of you posting pics that actually disprove your argument. I gotta hand it to you, that was brilliant!
-
Nonsense. Now see the truth on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk_NzMejP-0
-
Ha ha, you naysaying pagan believing sheeple always assume you got something on those who truly study what they are talking about and fling some so-called proof of nothing showing you know zip about the subject. I would not speak so harshly had I been treated with respect, but since you attack without knowing, you ought to know so you won't attack and look so stupid. Did you really think you could spring Eratosthenes, a pagan, on me and I didn't know the so-called proof he had for round earth? Are you kidding me? C'mon now. Give me some real proof of round moving earth. Please.
-
LoL, this guy's argument has been reduced to threats of proof. Longitude and Latitude will kill the Flat Earth every single time. Good going on the shadows angle, though. Maybe he'll get around to refuting it once he's done swimming in his vault of proofs, Scrooge McDuck style.
(http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/37800000/Scrooge-McDuck-gif-mickey-and-friends-37815657-245-188.gif)
Your heliocentric pagan belief in NASA's evolution indoctrination is far worse than anything I do not know regarding a very extensive topic. If you wanted to know more, I have literally tons of proofs for flat earth. You have zero proofs for your pagan notion.
I look forward to more of you posting pics that actually disprove your argument. I gotta hand it to you, that was brilliant!
Waiting on your proof...
-
If the earth were really flat then would a full moon, viewed at the same time and date from the (north) arctic, look the same or different from other places on the (flat) earth?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AdtSF-TpB0
Don't bother with Pythagoras either. Pagan heliocentric demon worshipers attempting to prove evolution, big bang, millions year old round earth, need not apply.
-
Ha ha, you naysaying pagan believing sheeple always assume you got something on those who truly study what they are talking about and fling some so-called proof of nothing showing you know zip about the subject. I would not speak so harshly had I been treated with respect, but since you attack without knowing, you ought to know so you won't attack and look so stupid. Did you really think you could spring Eratosthenes, a pagan, on me and I didn't know the so-called proof he had for round earth? Are you kidding me? C'mon now. Give me some real proof of round moving earth. Please.
A) do you deny that the sun's rays are very nearly parallel to the earth?
B) Do you deny that shadows are not cast in locations at the summer solstice when the sun is directly overhead?
C) do you deny that in other locations at the same time as in B) that obelisks do cast shadows?
If you do not deny any of these statements, then you have no choice but to agree that the earth is curved. How else would a shadow be cast in point A but not in point B when the rays of the sun are parallel?
You keep using the word "pagan" as if any idea of pagan origin must be wrong. Interesting because the church uses pagan philosophy extensively, AKA Aristotelianism, particularly Aristotle's logic. The law of contradiction is of pagan origin. I see that you do not accept that law. If you don't accept that law then you do not accept logic. Intelligent people do not hate logic.
-
A. If the earth were really flat then would the mathematical formula for The Great Circle Route, between any two points on earth, describe in fact the land surface (as if by sea, that is at sea level) route for the shortest distance in that direction between the two said points?
B. Would the same Great Circle Route on a flat earth describe a straight line or a curve?
C. Which describes the shorter distance between two points on a flat surface, a straight line or a curve?
D. When a ship on planet earth sails from San Diego Harbor to the Fiji Islands, does it traverse the same distance following the same compass bearing all the way, as it does when following any particularly changing compass bearing along the way?
E. Does any Great Circle Route, in general, describe a route with a changing compass bearing en route, or a constant compass bearing en route? Why?
F. Why does the Great Circle Route Formula include trigonometric functions*, which if omitted, do not produce the same compass bearing answers for various degrees of longitute or latitude?
G. Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
*E.g., spherical law of cosines formula (cos c = cos a cos b + sin a sin b cos C)
.
-
If the earth were really flat then would a full moon, viewed at the same time and date from the (north) arctic, look the same or different from other places on the (flat) earth?
Exact same. If the moon can be seen, it will be full for anyone no matter where they are.
-
A. If the earth were really flat then would the mathematical formula for The Great Circle Route, between any two points on earth, describe in fact the land surface (as if by sea, that is at sea level) route for the shortest distance in that direction between the two said points?
The shortest distance between two points is straight not curved.
B. Would the same Great Circle Route on a flat earth describe a straight line or a curve?
It would describe a curve but that's because one has to circle to circle. Nevertheless, a circle is not a sphere.
C. Which describes the shorter distance between two points on a flat surface, a straight line or a curve?
A straight line.
D. When a ship on planet earth sails from San Diego Harbor to the Fiji Islands, does it traverse the same distance following the same compass bearing all the way, as it does when following any particularly changing compass bearing along the way?
E. Does any Great Circle Route, in general, describe a route with a changing compass bearing en route, or a constant compass bearing en route? Why?
F. Why does the Great Circle Route Formula include trigonometric functions*, which if omitted, do not produce the same compass bearing answers for various degrees of longitute or latitude?
G. Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line? It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
*E.g., spherical law of cosines formula (cos c = cos a cos b + sin a sin b cos C)
.
Lots to think about! Great questions! There are two I cannot answer! Yet.
-
If the earth were really flat then would a full moon, viewed at the same time and date from the (north) arctic, look the same or different from other places on the (flat) earth?
Exact same. If the moon can be seen, it will be full for anyone no matter where they are.
It is true, that the moon looks upside down for some, but the fullness or phases do not change. The upside down phenomenon is only explained properly on flat earth.
-
If the earth were really flat then would a full moon, viewed at the same time and date from the (north) arctic, look the same or different from other places on the (flat) earth?
Exact same. If the moon can be seen, it will be full for anyone no matter where they are.
It is true, that the moon looks upside down for some, but the fullness or phases do not change. The upside down phenomenon is only explained properly on flat earth.
As seen here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RljwAY3Auz0
-
Ha ha, you naysaying pagan believing sheeple always assume you got something on those who truly study what they are talking about and fling some so-called proof of nothing showing you know zip about the subject. I would not speak so harshly had I been treated with respect, but since you attack without knowing, you ought to know so you won't attack and look so stupid. Did you really think you could spring Eratosthenes, a pagan, on me and I didn't know the so-called proof he had for round earth? Are you kidding me? C'mon now. Give me some real proof of round moving earth. Please.
A) do you deny that the sun's rays are very nearly parallel to the earth?
B) Do you deny that shadows are not cast in locations at the summer solstice when the sun is directly overhead?
C) do you deny that in other locations at the same time as in B) that obelisks do cast shadows?
If you do not deny any of these statements, then you have no choice but to agree that the earth is curved. How else would a shadow be cast in point A but not in point B when the rays of the sun are parallel?
You keep using the word "pagan" as if any idea of pagan origin must be wrong. Interesting because the church uses pagan philosophy extensively, AKA Aristotelianism, particularly Aristotle's logic. The law of contradiction is of pagan origin. I see that you do not accept that law. If you don't accept that law then you do not accept logic. Intelligent people do not hate logic.
I do deny suns rays are parallel to earth. They clearly are not!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-c9VQ-BDJI
-
If the earth were really flat then would a full moon, viewed at the same time and date from the (north) arctic, look the same or different from other places on the (flat) earth?
Two different views of the same moon:
Location of first photo
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date/Time of photo
October 8, 2014 at 5:25AM CST
Data:
Photographer
Asheracat
Email
gcampagn@shaw.ca
Equipment
Nikon D800 with Rokinon 500mm F6.3 mirror telephoto lens
5:25 CST with my Nikon D800 and Rokinon 500mm F6.3 mirror telephoto lens using the settings of 1/30/sec at Hi2 ISO(maximum ISO)
Source:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/blood-moon-from-winnipeg-manitoba-canada/
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fd366w3m5tf0813.cloudfront.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014-10-08_543559eab36cd_BloodMoonpic1b.jpg&sp=9471aed6e0b6c24bdb56ad408b1fb224)
Second photo source:
http://www.roadlesstravelled.com.au/how-to-take-great-lunar-eclipse-photos-of-the-moon/
Photo credit: Neerav Bhatt – Lunar Eclipse 28th August 2007 – Viewed from Sydney Australia (Panasonic FZ30 420mm @ 35mm equivalent)
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2379/2282775807_f7b42a12ac_z.jpg?zz=1)
-
If the earth were really flat then would a full moon, viewed at the same time and date from the (north) arctic, look the same or different from other places on the (flat) earth?
Two different views of the same moon:
Location of first photo
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date/Time of photo
October 8, 2014 at 5:25AM CST
Data:
Photographer
Asheracat
Email
gcampagn@shaw.ca
Equipment
Nikon D800 with Rokinon 500mm F6.3 mirror telephoto lens
5:25 CST with my Nikon D800 and Rokinon 500mm F6.3 mirror telephoto lens using the settings of 1/30/sec at Hi2 ISO(maximum ISO)
Source:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/blood-moon-from-winnipeg-manitoba-canada/
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fd366w3m5tf0813.cloudfront.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014-10-08_543559eab36cd_BloodMoonpic1b.jpg&sp=9471aed6e0b6c24bdb56ad408b1fb224)
Second photo source:
http://www.roadlesstravelled.com.au/how-to-take-great-lunar-eclipse-photos-of-the-moon/
Photo credit: Neerav Bhatt – Lunar Eclipse 28th August 2007 – Viewed from Sydney Australia (Panasonic FZ30 420mm @ 35mm equivalent)
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2379/2282775807_f7b42a12ac_z.jpg?zz=1)
Like I said...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RljwAY3Auz0
-
I'm still waiting for proof of round moving earth. Please...something!
-
It appears you're not familiar with the CI platform sufficiently to render legible replies.
Please allow me to help you. Your replies I will separate below from my original post (which see (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=160&#p8)):
A. If the earth were really flat then would the mathematical formula for The Great Circle Route, between any two points on earth, describe in fact the land surface (as if by sea, that is at sea level) route for the shortest distance in that direction between the two said points?
The shortest distance between two points is straight not curved.
B. Would the same Great Circle Route on a flat earth describe a straight line or a curve?
It would describe a curve but that's because one has to circle to circle. Nevertheless, a circle is not a sphere.
Was that a typo? Did you mean to say "one has to curve to circuмnavigate" or what? "One has to circle to circle" means nothing to me.
C. Which describes the shorter distance between two points on a flat surface, a straight line or a curve?
A straight line.
D. When a ship on planet earth sails from San Diego Harbor to the Fiji Islands, does it traverse the same distance following the same compass bearing all the way, as it does when following any particularly changing compass bearing along the way?
[Please enter your answer here.]
E. Does any Great Circle Route, in general, describe a route with a changing compass bearing en route, or a constant compass bearing en route? Why?
[Please enter your answer here.]
F. Why does the Great Circle Route Formula include trigonometric functions*, which if omitted, do not produce the same compass bearing answers for various degrees of longitute or latitude?
[Please enter your answer here.]
G. Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
*E.g., spherical law of cosines formula (cos c = cos a cos b + sin a sin b cos C)
.
Lots to think about! Great questions! There are two I cannot answer! Yet.
It would appear to be THREE questions you haven't answered: D, E and F.
...........................
Be that as it may, we could begin with your answer to question G: Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
Do you want to revise your answer before we discuss it, or is it okay as it stands?
You don't get a second chance to change your answer; this is one-shot opportunity you can have to ensure clarity of discussion, and making sure you didn't misunderstand something later on.
Additionally, regarding this question G, are the two points located north and south of each other or east and west of each other? This is a fundamental distinction that must be clear before we can discuss the topic.
.
-
It appears you're not familiar with the CI platform sufficiently to render legible replies.
Please allow me to help you. Your replies I will separate below from my original post (which see (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=160&#p8)):
A. If the earth were really flat then would the mathematical formula for The Great Circle Route, between any two points on earth, describe in fact the land surface (as if by sea, that is at sea level) route for the shortest distance in that direction between the two said points?
The shortest distance between two points is straight not curved.
B. Would the same Great Circle Route on a flat earth describe a straight line or a curve?
It would describe a curve but that's because one has to circle to circle. Nevertheless, a circle is not a sphere.
Was that a typo? Did you mean to say "one has to curve to circuмnavigate" or what? "One has to circle to circle" means nothing to me.
C. Which describes the shorter distance between two points on a flat surface, a straight line or a curve?
A straight line.
D. When a ship on planet earth sails from San Diego Harbor to the Fiji Islands, does it traverse the same distance following the same compass bearing all the way, as it does when following any particularly changing compass bearing along the way?
[Please enter your answer here.]
E. Does any Great Circle Route, in general, describe a route with a changing compass bearing en route, or a constant compass bearing en route? Why?
[Please enter your answer here.]
F. Why does the Great Circle Route Formula include trigonometric functions*, which if omitted, do not produce the same compass bearing answers for various degrees of longitute or latitude?
[Please enter your answer here.]
G. Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
*E.g., spherical law of cosines formula (cos c = cos a cos b + sin a sin b cos C)
.
Lots to think about! Great questions! There are two I cannot answer! Yet.
It would appear to be THREE questions you haven't answered: D, E and F.
...........................
Be that as it may, we could begin with your answer to question G: Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
Do you want to revise your answer before we discuss it, or is it okay as it stands?
You don't get a second chance to change your answer; this is one-shot opportunity you can have to ensure clarity of discussion, and making sure you didn't misunderstand something later on.
Additionally, regarding this question G, are the two points located north and south of each other or east and west of each other? This is a fundamental distinction that must be clear before we can discuss the topic.
.
The only reason I have not answered is that you have not been clear.
-
It appears you're not familiar with the CI platform sufficiently to render legible replies.
Please allow me to help you. Your replies I will separate below from my original post (which see (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=160&#p8)):
A. If the earth were really flat then would the mathematical formula for The Great Circle Route, between any two points on earth, describe in fact the land surface (as if by sea, that is at sea level) route for the shortest distance in that direction between the two said points?
The shortest distance between two points is straight not curved.
B. Would the same Great Circle Route on a flat earth describe a straight line or a curve?
It would describe a curve but that's because one has to circle to circle. Nevertheless, a circle is not a sphere.
Was that a typo? Did you mean to say "one has to curve to circuмnavigate" or what? "One has to circle to circle" means nothing to me.
C. Which describes the shorter distance between two points on a flat surface, a straight line or a curve?
A straight line.
D. When a ship on planet earth sails from San Diego Harbor to the Fiji Islands, does it traverse the same distance following the same compass bearing all the way, as it does when following any particularly changing compass bearing along the way?
[Please enter your answer here.]
E. Does any Great Circle Route, in general, describe a route with a changing compass bearing en route, or a constant compass bearing en route? Why?
[Please enter your answer here.]
F. Why does the Great Circle Route Formula include trigonometric functions*, which if omitted, do not produce the same compass bearing answers for various degrees of longitute or latitude?
[Please enter your answer here.]
G. Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
*E.g., spherical law of cosines formula (cos c = cos a cos b + sin a sin b cos C)
.
Lots to think about! Great questions! There are two I cannot answer! Yet.
It would appear to be THREE questions you haven't answered: D, E and F.
...........................
Be that as it may, we could begin with your answer to question G: Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
Do you want to revise your answer before we discuss it, or is it okay as it stands?
You don't get a second chance to change your answer; this is one-shot opportunity you can have to ensure clarity of discussion, and making sure you didn't misunderstand something later on.
I do not want to revise. This is obvious if you understand what you've asked.
Additionally, regarding this question G, are the two points located north and south of each other or east and west of each other? This is a fundamental distinction that must be clear before we can discuss the topic.
.
-
The quickest way to figure out if earth is flat is to determine if there is curvature. Absent of curvature, you round earthers have zero argument. Your proofs rest in the obfuscation of rhetoric. If you can go simple, prove your point with evidence of curvature, you will have proven the case for heliocentrism. But you can't.
-
Another proof reference that won't hold water is NASA. If you use them to support your theory of round moving earth, you won't get far. Go deeper. You'll either drown or find your way to the truth. Earth is flat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gizxlFkdZug
-
It appears you're not familiar with the CI platform sufficiently to render legible replies.
Please allow me to help you. Your replies I will separate below from my original post (which see (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=160&#p8)):
A. If the earth were really flat then would the mathematical formula for The Great Circle Route, between any two points on earth, describe in fact the land surface (as if by sea, that is at sea level) route for the shortest distance in that direction between the two said points?
The shortest distance between two points is straight not curved.
B. Would the same Great Circle Route on a flat earth describe a straight line or a curve?
It would describe a curve but that's because one has to circle to circle. Nevertheless, a circle is not a sphere.
Was that a typo? Did you mean to say "one has to curve to circuмnavigate" or what? "One has to circle to circle" means nothing to me.
C. Which describes the shorter distance between two points on a flat surface, a straight line or a curve?
A straight line.
D. When a ship on planet earth sails from San Diego Harbor to the Fiji Islands, does it traverse the same distance following the same compass bearing all the way, as it does when following any particularly changing compass bearing along the way?
[Please enter your answer here.]
E. Does any Great Circle Route, in general, describe a route with a changing compass bearing en route, or a constant compass bearing en route? Why?
[Please enter your answer here.]
F. Why does the Great Circle Route Formula include trigonometric functions*, which if omitted, do not produce the same compass bearing answers for various degrees of longitute or latitude?
[Please enter your answer here.]
G. Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
*E.g., spherical law of cosines formula (cos c = cos a cos b + sin a sin b cos C)
.
Lots to think about! Great questions! There are two I cannot answer! Yet.
It would appear to be THREE questions you haven't answered: D, E and F.
...........................
Be that as it may, we could begin with your answer to question G: Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
Do you want to revise your answer before we discuss it, or is it okay as it stands?
You don't get a second chance to change your answer; this is one-shot opportunity you can have to ensure clarity of discussion, and making sure you didn't misunderstand something later on.
Additionally, regarding this question G, are the two points located north and south of each other or east and west of each other? This is a fundamental distinction that must be clear before we can discuss the topic.
.
[/color]
The only reason I have not answered is that you have not been clear.
As I said above, "We could begin with your answer to question G."
And the rest following, is "to ensure clarity of discussion." So if you think I have not been clear, please describe the lack of clarity, or ask a specific question.
And again, please state whether you understand the two points I mentioned ("at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant") to be located north and south of each other, or, do you understand them to be east and west of each other?
-
Ha ha, you naysaying pagan believing sheeple always assume you got something on those who truly study what they are talking about and fling some so-called proof of nothing showing you know zip about the subject. I would not speak so harshly had I been treated with respect, but since you attack without knowing, you ought to know so you won't attack and look so stupid. Did you really think you could spring Eratosthenes, a pagan, on me and I didn't know the so-called proof he had for round earth? Are you kidding me? C'mon now. Give me some real proof of round moving earth. Please.
Stop ignoring the Latitude and Longitude issue. It doesn't sound like you're able to think critically about this seeing as you posted a distorted map of both north and south poles. You may fool everyone else with your gaslighting tactics, but you don't fool me. And don't keep thinking Geocentrism helps your case in anyway. Longitude and Latitude have nothing to do with the Earth's relationship to the sun. I specifically called you out on the shape of the Earth and you can't handle it. All you got is adjectives!
-
Ha ha, you naysaying pagan believing sheeple always assume you got something on those who truly study what they are talking about and fling some so-called proof of nothing showing you know zip about the subject. I would not speak so harshly had I been treated with respect, but since you attack without knowing, you ought to know so you won't attack and look so stupid. Did you really think you could spring Eratosthenes, a pagan, on me and I didn't know the so-called proof he had for round earth? Are you kidding me? C'mon now. Give me some real proof of round moving earth. Please.
Stop ignoring Latitude and Longitude issue. It doesn't sound like you're able to think critically about this seeing as you posted a distorted map of both north and south poles. You may fool everyone else with your gaslighting tactics, but you don't fool me. And don't keep thinking Geocentrism helps your case in anyway. Longitude and Latitude have nothing to do with the Earth's relationship to the sun. I specifically called you out on the shape of the Earth and you can't handle it. All you got is adjectives!
Stop ignoring horizon issues. Stop ignoring NASA satanic associations. Stop ignoring relative issues with east and west because there is no "east" or "west" on a globe. Stop ignoring the problems with satellites. Stop ignoring the moon hoax issues. Stop ignoring the heliocentric association with satanic Kabbalah. Stop ignoring scripture. Stop ignoring every single proof that shows earth is flat and provide ONE proof for round earth. Michaelson Morely already proved there is no movement of the earth, Cosmas of Indiocoplestes proves earth is flat in the year 550. Galileo was condemned. Keplar, Newton and Einstein were anti-Catholic shills. So why do you place your trust in modern science--falsely so-called? You want answers? Stop denying the facts and ask. You will receive.
-
It would seem aryzia cannot cope with questions regarding latitude and longitude because he (she?) doesn't know what they have in common vs. how they are distinguished.
-
It would seem aryzia cannot cope with questions regarding latitude and longitude because he (she?) doesn't know what they have in common vs. how they are distinguished.
The proof of round earth rests on you! Can you provide? One proof? Obviously, you cannot. So you revert to ad hominems? That'll work, right?
Ah, no.
-
It would seem aryzia cannot cope with questions regarding latitude and longitude because he (she?) doesn't know what they have in common vs. how they are distinguished.
Truth. I'm not sure they understand L&L at all, frankly.
-
It would seem aryzia cannot cope with questions regarding latitude and longitude because he (she?) doesn't know what they have in common vs. how they are distinguished.
Truth. I'm not sure they understand L&L at all, frankly.
Also, please explain why engineers of railroads NEVER have and NEVER do take curvature into account when constructing rail lines across great distances. The problem isn't longitude and latitude, which is a straw man, and begs the question, but for you, the problem of no curvature persists. Earth is not round. Earth doesn't move. Earth is not heliocentric. Look it up. Learn something. Your pathetic girl-slapping responses are annoying. But they don't prove anything.
-
One last chance.
Please respond to this simple question: Is your answer to G your final answer?
Post
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=180&#p2)
We could begin with your answer to question G: Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
Do you want to revise your answer before we discuss it, or is it okay as it stands?
You don't get a second chance to change your answer; this is one-shot opportunity you can have to ensure clarity of discussion, and making sure you didn't misunderstand something later on.
Additionally, regarding this question G, are the two points located north and south of each other or east and west of each other? This is a fundamental distinction that must be clear before we can discuss the topic.
The only reason I have not answered is that you have not been clear.
As I said above, "We could begin with your answer to question G."
And the rest following, is "to ensure clarity of discussion." So if you think I have not been clear, please describe the lack of clarity, or ask a specific question.
And again, please state whether you understand the two points I mentioned ("at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant") to be located north and south of each other, or, do you understand them to be east and west of each other?
Any surveyor or cartographer can tell you what east and west means, and can distinguish it from north and south. It's not rocket science.
.
-
I just read a comic in the newspaper that claims that there are "members of the Flat Earth Society all over the globe!"
-
I just read a comic in the newspaper that claims that there are "members of the Flat Earth Society all over the globe!"
You done it again!* That don't even need a graphic!! (or a MEME)
:roll-laugh1:
*the first time was the Bicycle playing cards.
-
If the earth is flat, why are the constellations different in the southern hemisphere? Before claiming that they're not and it's a lie that they are, I note that my source that the constellations differ is my father who was a sailor in his youth and personally witnessed the fact.
-
One last chance.
Please respond to this simple question: Is your answer to G your final answer?
Post
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=180&#p2)
We could begin with your answer to question G: Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
Do you want to revise your answer before we discuss it, or is it okay as it stands?
You don't get a second chance to change your answer; this is one-shot opportunity you can have to ensure clarity of discussion, and making sure you didn't misunderstand something later on.
Additionally, regarding this question G, are the two points located north and south of each other or east and west of each other? This is a fundamental distinction that must be clear before we can discuss the topic.
The only reason I have not answered is that you have not been clear.
As I said above, "We could begin with your answer to question G."
And the rest following, is "to ensure clarity of discussion." So if you think I have not been clear, please describe the lack of clarity, or ask a specific question.
And again, please state whether you understand the two points I mentioned ("at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant") to be located north and south of each other, or, do you understand them to be east and west of each other?
Any surveyor or cartographer can tell you what east and west means, and can distinguish it from north and south. It's not rocket science.
.
This last sentence is ridiculous. On a globe, where is east? Where is west? Are you saying there are only relative directions? A little to the east, a little to the west? What is north? What is south, on a globe? If up is out toward space for everyone, what is down? Does north end at the north pole? Or is south north too, since there are no true directions, only relative ones? Please do tell. I have still to get an answer from you regarding the curvature of the earth. When that comes, I may consider answering one of your questions. As it stands, you do not know which end is up.
-
I just read a comic in the newspaper that claims that there are "members of the Flat Earth Society all over the globe!"
Ha ha. If there were a globe, it would be even funnier.
-
If the earth is flat, why are the constellations different in the southern hemisphere? Before claiming that they're not and it's a lie that they are, I note that my source that the constellations differ is my father who was a sailor in his youth and personally witnessed the fact.
The constellations are not all different in the southern "hemisphere", but remain relative to each other, some being visible quite far north. The further you go "south", the less likely you can see the southern-most stars in the north. Stands to reason since distance obscures distant things and as all points converge, angles and perspective change and things visible up close are no longer so far away. Perspective is an interesting animal. This is only a beginning...Check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BjRYBDAfYA Perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zsQxTc7aeE The Star of Bethlehem
-
Somebody debunk this if you dare! Earth is flat, modern science is a scam. NASA is proven to be lying, enriching the "globalist" agenda. Evolution bit the big one and the big bang is done. No more heliocentrism. No more diabolical disorientation. The masses can see the truth of God's creation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-lT2EZJ69E
-
.
Like I said, one last chance.
The question was: Is your reply to G your final answer?
One last chance.
Please respond to this simple question: Is your answer to G your final answer?
Post
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=180&#p2)
We could begin with your answer to question G: Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
Do you want to revise your answer before we discuss it, or is it okay as it stands?
You don't get a second chance to change your answer; this is one-shot opportunity you can have to ensure clarity of discussion, and making sure you didn't misunderstand something later on.
Additionally, regarding this question G, are the two points located north and south of each other or east and west of each other? This is a fundamental distinction that must be clear before we can discuss the topic.
The only reason I have not answered is that you have not been clear.
As I said above, "We could begin with your answer to question G."
And the rest following, is "to ensure clarity of discussion." So if you think I have not been clear, please describe the lack of clarity, or ask a specific question.
And again, please state whether you understand the two points I mentioned ("at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant") to be located north and south of each other, or, do you understand them to be east and west of each other?
Any surveyor or cartographer can tell you what east and west means, and can distinguish it from north and south. It's not rocket science.
This last sentence is ridiculous. On a globe, where is east? Where is west? Are you saying there are only relative directions? A little to the east, a little to the west? What is north? What is south, on a globe? If up is out toward space for everyone, what is down? Does north end at the north pole? Or is south north too, since there are no true directions, only relative ones? Please do tell. I have still to get an answer from you regarding the curvature of the earth. When that comes, I may consider answering one of your questions. As it stands, you do not know which end is up.
You chose not to answer, and your time is up. Sorry.
Instead of answering, you chose to impudently reply with a juvenile, peevish insult, "This last sentence is ridiculous." But I know it's not, since I personally have known several surveyors and several cartographers. Have you? I don't think so.
"On a globe where is east?" you ask. If I am in Texas (like Matthew is), then east is toward Louisiana or Florida, for example. But if I am in California (which I am in fact) then Texas is east. On a globe, east is a relative direction, not absolute, and requires a point of reference. I know a Marine who used to give coordinates by radio to a battleship at sea, which would then send a salvo of 16" shells to pinpoint accuracy which blew the enemy to smithereens. He used coordinates with degrees, minutes and seconds north, and ditto south, east and west. The enemy died, and my friend lived. It worked. And I would be interested to see you face-to-face telling him he's making it all up, because you would then have about two seconds to live if you would choose not to run away (like you're already running away from our discussion, you measly COWARD). Once a Marine, always a Marine. "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" is his motto.
"Where is west?" you ask. West is relative to the point of reference just as east is. See above.
North is toward the North Pole, when reckoning by astronomical standards (apparent movement of the stars and/or apparent rotation of the earth in either of its 2 cycles of approximately 24 hours or 24,000 years), and toward Magnetic North if reckoning by the unpredictably changing magnetic field of the earth. Surveyors use a COMPASS on their very expensive instruments, and compensate according to formula for where Polar North is, since it is the latter that is more stable for the practical purposes they're dealing with such as give or take a few hundred years. All the real estate in the world is located by means of the art and science of surveying, and here you are saying that it's all fiction. Go tell that to the Assessor's office that writes your property tax bill, unless you don't have any real property (which is most likely the case, since you're so stupid and ignorant and full of yourself).
"If up is out toward space for everyone, what is down?" Depending where "everyone" is, up could be different directions, because it's a line from the center of the earth projected outward toward the stars at 90 degrees from the horizontal, away from the earth. Down, therefore, is toward the center of the earth, generally speaking, the direction in which things fall and where plumb bobs point. BTW if you are a carpenter showing up for work with a plumb bob and a level, at what kind of project would you ALWAYS be laughed off the job? Never fails. Can't guess? Then you don't have much experience, my friend.
"I have still to get an answer from you regarding the curvature of the earth. When that comes, I may consider answering one of your questions. As it stands, you do not know which end is up." Speak for yourself.
My question, G above, which you answered incorrectly, is specifically about the curvature of the earth, so it already came, and you missed it. Literally getting it wrong. But you got other questions wrong, too. You just are not capable of dealing with it.
Your loss, freak.
.
-
Ha ha, you naysaying pagan believing sheeple always assume you got something on those who truly study what they are talking about and fling some so-called proof of nothing showing you know zip about the subject. I would not speak so harshly had I been treated with respect, but since you attack without knowing, you ought to know so you won't attack and look so stupid. Did you really think you could spring Eratosthenes, a pagan, on me and I didn't know the so-called proof he had for round earth? Are you kidding me? C'mon now. Give me some real proof of round moving earth. Please.
A) do you deny that the sun's rays are very nearly parallel to the earth?
B) Do you deny that shadows are not cast in locations at the summer solstice when the sun is directly overhead?
C) do you deny that in other locations at the same time as in B) that obelisks do cast shadows?
If you do not deny any of these statements, then you have no choice but to agree that the earth is curved. How else would a shadow be cast in point A but not in point B when the rays of the sun are parallel?
You keep using the word "pagan" as if any idea of pagan origin must be wrong. Interesting because the church uses pagan philosophy extensively, AKA Aristotelianism, particularly Aristotle's logic. The law of contradiction is of pagan origin. I see that you do not accept that law. If you don't accept that law then you do not accept logic. Intelligent people do not hate logic.
Heliocentrism was born of pagan sun worship, a Kabbalistic doctrine opposed to the Catholic Church back when and opposed to the Catholic Church now.
-
.
Like I said, one last chance.
The question was: Is your reply to G your final answer?
One last chance.
Please respond to this simple question: Is your answer to G your final answer?
Post
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=180&#p2)
We could begin with your answer to question G: Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
Do you want to revise your answer before we discuss it, or is it okay as it stands?
You don't get a second chance to change your answer; this is one-shot opportunity you can have to ensure clarity of discussion, and making sure you didn't misunderstand something later on.
Additionally, regarding this question G, are the two points located north and south of each other or east and west of each other? This is a fundamental distinction that must be clear before we can discuss the topic.
The only reason I have not answered is that you have not been clear.
As I said above, "We could begin with your answer to question G."
And the rest following, is "to ensure clarity of discussion." So if you think I have not been clear, please describe the lack of clarity, or ask a specific question.
And again, please state whether you understand the two points I mentioned ("at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant") to be located north and south of each other, or, do you understand them to be east and west of each other?
Any surveyor or cartographer can tell you what east and west means, and can distinguish it from north and south. It's not rocket science.
This last sentence is ridiculous. On a globe, where is east? Where is west? Are you saying there are only relative directions? A little to the east, a little to the west? What is north? What is south, on a globe? If up is out toward space for everyone, what is down? Does north end at the north pole? Or is south north too, since there are no true directions, only relative ones? Please do tell. I have still to get an answer from you regarding the curvature of the earth. When that comes, I may consider answering one of your questions. As it stands, you do not know which end is up.
You chose not to answer, and your time is up. Sorry.
Instead of answering, you chose to impudently reply with a juvenile, peevish insult, "This last sentence is ridiculous." But I know it's not, since I personally have known several surveyors and several cartographers. Have you? I don't think so.
"On a globe where is east?" you ask. If I am in Texas (like Matthew is), then east is toward Louisiana or Florida, for example. But if I am in California (which I am in fact) then Texas is east. On a globe, east is a relative direction, not absolute, and requires a point of reference. I know a Marine who used to give coordinates by radio to a battleship at sea, which would then send a salvo of 16" shells to pinpoint accuracy which blew the enemy to smithereens. He used coordinates with degrees, minutes and seconds north, and ditto south, east and west. The enemy died, and my friend lived. It worked. And I would be interested to see you face-to-face telling him he's making it all up, because you would then have about two seconds to live if you would choose not to run away (like you're already running away from our discussion, you measly COWARD). Once a Marine, always a Marine. "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" is his motto.
"Where is west?" you ask. West is relative to the point of reference just as east is. See above.
North is toward the North Pole, when reckoning by astronomical standards (apparent movement of the stars and/or apparent rotation of the earth in either of its 2 cycles of approximately 24 hours or 24,000 years), and toward Magnetic North if reckoning by the unpredictably changing magnetic field of the earth. Surveyors use a COMPASS on their very expensive instruments, and compensate according to formula for where Polar North is, since it is the latter that is more stable for the practical purposes they're dealing with such as give or take a few hundred years. All the real estate in the world is located by means of the art and science of surveying, and here you are saying that it's all fiction. Go tell that to the Assessor's office that writes your property tax bill, unless you don't have any real property (which is most likely the case, since you're so stupid and ignorant and full of yourself).
"If up is out toward space for everyone, what is down?" Depending where "everyone" is, up could be different directions, because it's a line from the center of the earth projected outward toward the stars at 90 degrees from the horizontal, away from the earth. Down, therefore, is toward the center of the earth, generally speaking, the direction in which things fall and where plumb bobs point. BTW if you are a carpenter showing up for work with a plumb bob and a level, at what kind of project would you ALWAYS be laughed off the job? Never fails. Can't guess? Then you don't have much experience, my friend.
"I have still to get an answer from you regarding the curvature of the earth. When that comes, I may consider answering one of your questions. As it stands, you do not know which end is up." Speak for yourself.
My question, G above, which you answered incorrectly, is specifically about the curvature of the earth, so it already came, and you missed it. Literally getting it wrong. But you got other questions wrong, too. You just are not capable of dealing with it.
Your loss, freak.
.
I've given you plenty of information in the form of videos. If you want answers, go to them.
-
.
Like I said, one last chance.
The question was: Is your reply to G your final answer?
One last chance.
Please respond to this simple question: Is your answer to G your final answer?
Post
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=180&#p2)
We could begin with your answer to question G: Is the great circle route between two points at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant, a straight line, or a curved line?
It can be a straight line on a flat earth, but it can't be straight on a ball.
Do you want to revise your answer before we discuss it, or is it okay as it stands?
You don't get a second chance to change your answer; this is one-shot opportunity you can have to ensure clarity of discussion, and making sure you didn't misunderstand something later on.
Additionally, regarding this question G, are the two points located north and south of each other or east and west of each other? This is a fundamental distinction that must be clear before we can discuss the topic.
The only reason I have not answered is that you have not been clear.
As I said above, "We could begin with your answer to question G."
And the rest following, is "to ensure clarity of discussion." So if you think I have not been clear, please describe the lack of clarity, or ask a specific question.
And again, please state whether you understand the two points I mentioned ("at 30 degrees latitude and 2,000 miles distant") to be located north and south of each other, or, do you understand them to be east and west of each other?
Any surveyor or cartographer can tell you what east and west means, and can distinguish it from north and south. It's not rocket science.
This last sentence is ridiculous. On a globe, where is east? Where is west? Are you saying there are only relative directions? A little to the east, a little to the west? What is north? What is south, on a globe? If up is out toward space for everyone, what is down? Does north end at the north pole? Or is south north too, since there are no true directions, only relative ones? Please do tell. I have still to get an answer from you regarding the curvature of the earth. When that comes, I may consider answering one of your questions. As it stands, you do not know which end is up.
You chose not to answer, and your time is up. Sorry.
Instead of answering, you chose to impudently reply with a juvenile, peevish insult, "This last sentence is ridiculous." But I know it's not, since I personally have known several surveyors and several cartographers. Have you? I don't think so.
"On a globe where is east?" you ask. If I am in Texas (like Matthew is), then east is toward Louisiana or Florida, for example. But if I am in California (which I am in fact) then Texas is east. On a globe, east is a relative direction, not absolute, and requires a point of reference. I know a Marine who used to give coordinates by radio to a battleship at sea, which would then send a salvo of 16" shells to pinpoint accuracy which blew the enemy to smithereens. He used coordinates with degrees, minutes and seconds north, and ditto south, east and west. The enemy died, and my friend lived. It worked. And I would be interested to see you face-to-face telling him he's making it all up, because you would then have about two seconds to live if you would choose not to run away (like you're already running away from our discussion, you measly COWARD). Once a Marine, always a Marine. "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" is his motto.
"Where is west?" you ask. West is relative to the point of reference just as east is. See above.
North is toward the North Pole, when reckoning by astronomical standards (apparent movement of the stars and/or apparent rotation of the earth in either of its 2 cycles of approximately 24 hours or 24,000 years), and toward Magnetic North if reckoning by the unpredictably changing magnetic field of the earth. Surveyors use a COMPASS on their very expensive instruments, and compensate according to formula for where Polar North is, since it is the latter that is more stable for the practical purposes they're dealing with such as give or take a few hundred years. All the real estate in the world is located by means of the art and science of surveying, and here you are saying that it's all fiction. Go tell that to the Assessor's office that writes your property tax bill, unless you don't have any real property (which is most likely the case, since you're so stupid and ignorant and full of yourself).
"If up is out toward space for everyone, what is down?" Depending where "everyone" is, up could be different directions, because it's a line from the center of the earth projected outward toward the stars at 90 degrees from the horizontal, away from the earth. Down, therefore, is toward the center of the earth, generally speaking, the direction in which things fall and where plumb bobs point. BTW if you are a carpenter showing up for work with a plumb bob and a level, at what kind of project would you ALWAYS be laughed off the job? Never fails. Can't guess? Then you don't have much experience, my friend.
"I have still to get an answer from you regarding the curvature of the earth. When that comes, I may consider answering one of your questions. As it stands, you do not know which end is up." Speak for yourself.
My question, G above, which you answered incorrectly, is specifically about the curvature of the earth, so it already came, and you missed it. Literally getting it wrong. But you got other questions wrong, too. You just are not capable of dealing with it.
Your loss, freak.
.
Why am I a freak? Because I bring you the truth and you can't tolerate it? I stick with my answer on G. There is no two points on a ball where you can draw a straight line between them. The line will always be curved. It may be direct, but it cannot be straight.
-
By the way, Neil Obstat, have you viewed any of the videos I posted? How can you learn anything when you're so busy blathering on ad nauseam and calling me names? You cannot argue if you don't have the information. View the videos and explain to me why they are wrong. If you can.
-
You still can't provide for Longitude and Latitude of the expanded flat Earth Southern Hemisphere. It's a very simple challenge that you continue to deflect. Probably because there is no accurate Flat Earth Map, nor can there ever be. Flat Earthers are extreme purveyors of internet agitprop.
-
I'm stooping lower by the day, the proof? I'm going to comment on this thread!
If the world is flat, wouldn't the entire world experience daylight and nighttime simultaneously? :shocked:
-
I'm stooping lower by the day, the proof? I'm going to comment on this thread!
If the world is flat, wouldn't the entire world experience daylight and nighttime simultaneously? :shocked:
Add to that the pattern of time zones, international date line, and daily radio communication (now with Internet as well) and someone would have to be controlling all this intercourse with some kind of master super-computer or something. Even members of CathInfo in different parts of the world post comments sometimes mentioning what time it is where they are and it matches the time zone protocol which would be impossible on one flat surface.
-
I'm stooping lower by the day, the proof? I'm going to comment on this thread!
If the world is flat, wouldn't the entire world experience daylight and nighttime simultaneously? :shocked:
Add to that the pattern of time zones, international date line, and daily radio communication (now with Internet as well) and someone would have to be controlling all this intercourse with some kind of master super-computer or something. Even members of CathInfo in different parts of the world post comments sometimes mentioning what time it is where they are and it matches the time zone protocol which would be impossible on one flat surface.
The rabbit hole goes deep on this one. They would no doubt say that the flat disc sun and moon orbit in a circle around the equator. Still ridiculous. Most of the time they rely on the fact that few people are very familiar with the southern hemisphere and Antarctica... They could kite the argument all day, all accepted facts and observations do not matter to them. They are attempting to dismantle the reasonable intuition. It's demoralization through propaganda, pure and simple.
-
Notice the videos never show a moving picture of their "flat earth" with the daylight area rotating around the map. How does the "flat disk sun" shine on a "flat earth" and produce daylight in a moving zone while darkness envelops the remaining portion, all when the "flat disk sun" is equally exposed to the entire "flat earth" at the same time? They don't make that video because it would be egg on their faces.
Freaks.
-
You still can't provide for Longitude and Latitude of the expanded flat Earth Southern Hemisphere. It's a very simple challenge that you continue to deflect. Probably because there is no accurate Flat Earth Map, nor can there ever be. Flat Earthers are extreme purveyors of internet agitprop.
http://www.mathworks.com/help/aerotbx/ug/lla2flat.html How to estimate longitude and latitude on a flat earth.
My turn: Are you one of those that believes man went to the moon?
-
I'm stooping lower by the day, the proof? I'm going to comment on this thread!
If the world is flat, wouldn't the entire world experience daylight and nighttime simultaneously? :shocked:
Of course not. The sun is very close to the earth as seen in this picture...
There are several models for the flat earth, but the circling sun doesn't quite fit. Rather, as Enoch reveals, the sun tracks across the sky for periods of days then tracks the next course. I've given several videos explaining. If earth is a globe, why doesn't the horizon fall away from the eye of the viewer, rather, the horizon climbs to meet the eye of the viewer no matter how high one goes.
-
i watched part of his video, which contains some 200 "proofs". When something can be proved, you only need one proof. Not one of his so-called proofs qualifies, which is why he has so many of them. Someone notify the doctor in his ward at the Bellevue Memorial Psychiatric Hospital that he isn't swallowing his meds.
-
Notice the videos never show a moving picture of their "flat earth" with the daylight area rotating around the map. How does the "flat disk sun" shine on a "flat earth" and produce daylight in a moving zone while darkness envelops the remaining portion, all when the "flat disk sun" is equally exposed to the entire "flat earth" at the same time? They don't make that video because it would be egg on their faces.
Freaks.
I'm a freak because I don't show a picture of a stationary earth moving? That's rich. I would settle for one authentic rotating video of your moving round earth. Sadly for you, you can't do that because note even one exists. Very strange. I wonder why? How about just a picture of round earth (no graphics please, we've seen enough nonsense). A full on picture of the globe, no cgi, no stitching, no monkey business, stars and satellites visible. Bzzt. You can't do that either. Nasa has yet to provide us (in 2016, no less) just one authentic picture of the globe! What is that expensive Hubble thing doing out there anyway? All available pics and videos of round earth are graphic animations. Please give me an explanation why the clouds in this two minute video of Nasa's rotating globe in a 24 hour time lapse never move an inch. But lo and behold! they can show us Pluto up close and detailed. I don't think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVuqcEuIRgs
Ha ha, here's another one for you. Google earth. How the mountains rise higher than the atmosphere, I will never know. Good work to those animation cartographers out there providing us with authentic views of the earth.
https://youtu.be/9EFgLOb5rt8
-
i watched part of his video, which contains some 200 "proofs". When something can be proved, you only need one proof. Not one of his so-called proofs qualifies, which is why he has so many of them. Someone notify the doctor in his ward at the Bellevue Memorial Psychiatric Hospital that he isn't swallowing his meds.
Ok, give me one proof that earth is round and moving 1000mph at the equator, 67, 000 mph around the sun, 550,000 mph through the universe...oh, and wobbling as modern science, Nasa, and the modern scientists assert.
-
i watched part of his video, which contains some 200 "proofs". When something can be proved, you only need one proof. Not one of his so-called proofs qualifies, which is why he has so many of them. Someone notify the doctor in his ward at the Bellevue Memorial Psychiatric Hospital that he isn't swallowing his meds.
Ok, give me one proof that earth is round and moving 1000mph at the equator, 67, 000 mph around the sun, 550,000 mph through the universe...oh, and wobbling ...
newborn babies.
-
i'll use a reductio argument
Suppose the earth is flat and of finite area. Then if a ship traverses from point A heading west, not changing course, then it will never return to point A because it will fall off the earth. However, ships heading west do return to point A even if they continue on the same course. Therefore, the supposition is wrong. The earth is not flat.
-
i'll use a reductio argument
Suppose the earth is flat and of finite area. Then if a ship traverses from point A heading west, not changing course, then it will never return to point A because it will fall off the earth. However, ships heading west do return to point A even if they continue on the same course. Therefore, the supposition is wrong. The earth is not flat.
This is not true because if it sails west in a circle, which it has to do on a globe, it will arrive at the same point.
There are literally hundreds of proofs for flat earth, including foundation, something God demands we lay for Faith. But there is absolutely zero proofs for round earth. If you have one or two proofs that can hold up, please provide them. Otherwise, take a look at the proofs for flat earth, including scripture, which describes the firmament stretched out like a tent over the earth and which divides the water below from the water above Genesis 1:6-8. Where is the water above on the globe? Do they not pretend that it is space without regard to water or heaven? Where is the firmament, which is a hard substance that divides earth from heavens above? The globe earth is a satanic indoctrination and re-creation of the earth in order to disprove scripture in order to assault God and reason.
-
i watched part of his video, which contains some 200 "proofs". When something can be proved, you only need one proof. Not one of his so-called proofs qualifies, which is why he has so many of them. Someone notify the doctor in his ward at the Bellevue Memorial Psychiatric Hospital that he isn't swallowing his meds.
Ok, give me one proof that earth is round and moving 1000mph at the equator, 67, 000 mph around the sun, 550,000 mph through the universe...oh, and wobbling ...
newborn babies.
Are newborn babies earth? There must be some proof of the earth being round and moving as you seem to believe. What are those proofs?
-
Madam, you have lost your marbles... by the way, may I ask if they are round or flat?
-
Madam, you have lost your marbles... by the way, may I ask if they are round or flat?
Why have I lost my marbles? Because I challenge pagan modern science? Because nothing about which such atheists indoctrinate the masses with is Catholic or reasonable? Because baal earth is a scam? Please do tell. What do you know that proves the theory that earth is round and moving? The Church teaches for certain that earth does not move and the sun does move. If your premise is false, untenable and without merit of any sort, can you really scoff at me with any kind of assurance you are correct? Take a look at the proof, that's all you need to do to prove you haven't made a serious mistake. If you can even remotely show proof of round moving earth, I stand corrected and my marbles are both lost and flat.
-
For all in this thread...
Nasa has lied to you, to the tune of millions and millions of your dollars. The Church attempted to prevent your misgivings, your false indoctrination....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the spread of the Copernican theory and complaints of theologians, the Holy Office in
1633 condemned the following propositions and explained why they are false:
I. The sun is the center of the world and completely immovable by local motion.
II. The earth is not the center of the world, not immovable, but moves according to the
whole of itself, and also with a diurnal motion.
The Church spoke on the issue...
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;
-
how can the earth be flat and finite, and yet no one has ever encountered an edge to it? Have planes and ships fallen off the earth in the course of history? I suppose birds have fallen too into interstellar space, except maybe for the cuckoo, and I know where he is at.
-
how can the earth be flat and finite, and yet no one has ever encountered an edge to it? Have planes and ships fallen off the earth in the course of history? I suppose birds have fallen too into interstellar space, except maybe for the cuckoo, and I know where he is at.
You assume a couple of things. Firstly, that no one has seen the edge. There are reasons to believe some have seen the edge. Besides St. Brenden and a few others, in the 1950's Admiral Byrd went to edge with regard to the ice wall in Antarctica. Not something Obama would want ppl to remember or spread, but interesting nonetheless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDfbsKxgcmc
There is no way to fall off the edge if the seas are bounded by land or ice.
-
how can the earth be flat and finite, and yet no one has ever encountered an edge to it? Have planes and ships fallen off the earth in the course of history? I suppose birds have fallen too into interstellar space, except maybe for the cuckoo, and I know where he is at.
Oh yea, the second one...how do you assume that the confines of earth are finite? Perhaps God simply doesn't allow most ppl to get the to so-called edge in the same way that he didn't allow most ppl to ascend certain mountains. If the conditions for the edge were inhospitable they will deflect all sorts of folks. Or, the powers that be could refuse access. We actually do not know all the particulars since modern scientists and globalists possess all the great toys with which to examine our world while lying about it saying it resulted from a big bang, gave birth to a gazillions year old earth where evolution gave life to man. All this is part of the same paradigm. There are things we do know. We know the earth cannot possibly be a ball without curvature. We know water doesn't stick to the outside of any baal, that it doesn't form a ball but is always level. The sun cannot possibly be 93,000,000 mi away. No one went to the moon, etc. Take some time to research it.
-
i watched part of his video, which contains some 200 "proofs". When something can be proved, you only need one proof. Not one of his so-called proofs qualifies, which is why he has so many of them. Someone notify the doctor in his ward at the Bellevue Memorial Psychiatric Hospital that he isn't swallowing his meds.
Ok, give me one proof that earth is round and moving 1000mph at the equator, 67, 000 mph around the sun, 550,000 mph through the universe...oh, and wobbling ...
newborn babies.
Are newborn babies earth? There must be some proof of the earth being round and moving as you seem to believe. What are those proofs?
Yes. Newborn babies offer visible proof that the Earth is a globe, spinning on an axis, in orbit around a sun that is flying through space.
Unborn infants are insulated from these motions in their mother's womb, but soon after their birth, you can see the effects of this motion on the newborn baby. Initially pinned by gravity to the ground, arms and legs flailing, then some roll-overs back to stomach, followed by a belly crawl, then crawling on hands and knees, and finally coordinating an amazing stand-up, first step, and a short walk.
During this entire development process, the physical effects of flying through space on a marble is more than apparent. Like I said, proof positive.
-
i watched part of his video, which contains some 200 "proofs". When something can be proved, you only need one proof. Not one of his so-called proofs qualifies, which is why he has so many of them. Someone notify the doctor in his ward at the Bellevue Memorial Psychiatric Hospital that he isn't swallowing his meds.
Ok, give me one proof that earth is round and moving 1000mph at the equator, 67, 000 mph around the sun, 550,000 mph through the universe...oh, and wobbling ...
newborn babies.
Are newborn babies earth? There must be some proof of the earth being round and moving as you seem to believe. What are those proofs?
Yes. Newborn babies offer visible proof that the Earth is a globe, spinning on an axis, in orbit around a sun that is flying through space.
Unborn infants are insulated from these motions in their mother's womb, but soon after their birth, you can see the effects of this motion on the newborn baby. Initially pinned by gravity to the ground, arms and legs flailing, then some roll-overs back to stomach, followed by a belly crawl, then crawling on hands and knees, and finally coordinating an amazing stand-up, first step, and a short walk.
During this entire development process, the physical effects of flying through space on a marble is more than apparent. Like I said, proof positive.
:sleep:
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Hey!
Did I just find a flat earth thread??
Awesome!!
I am reading David Wardlaw Scott's book "Terra Firma - Earth Not a Planet Proved From Scripture, Reason and Fact" and I am really enjoying it!
-
i'll use a reductio argument
Suppose the earth is flat and of finite area. Then if a ship traverses from point A heading west, not changing course, then it will never return to point A because it will fall off the earth. However, ships heading west do return to point A even if they continue on the same course. Therefore, the supposition is wrong. The earth is not flat.
This person is displaying their complete ignorance of the topic of the thread.
If one has taken five seconds to view a flat earth map or model, one would instantaneously understand how it is indeed possible to sail west and end up where you started.
It is a flat CIRCULAR plane.
-
I'm stooping lower by the day, the proof? I'm going to comment on this thread!
If the world is flat, wouldn't the entire world experience daylight and nighttime simultaneously? :shocked:
No, because the sun travels in its "circuit" (that's in the Bible) above the earth.
Remember the earth is stationary, and God's Creation is geocentric. The sun travels in its circuit, i.e. a circular path, around the plane of the earth, which is incredibly vast.
Therefore, the light of the sun illuminates a fixed perimeter that travels over the plane. The sun is small and local, i.e. near and at a lower altitude than you were taught. You can perceive this with your eyes.
It says in the book of Genesis that God divided the day from the night and gave one large light for the day, and the smaller light (the moon) for the night. While the sun is passing over one half of the plane it is day, while on the other half it is night.
The yin/yang symbol provides a simplified illustration of the model.
-
Flat Earthers are extreme purveyors of internet agitprop.
To me, this is one of the most humorous criticisms of flat earth - everybody thinks it's a personal attack on THEIR favorite conspiracy to make them look bad, or dumb, or "discredit" them.
"Flat earth is a psy-op!"
It's already been said earlier in this very thread (which I haven't fully finished reading): "Flat earth is here to make Catholics look like nuts!"
9-11 Truthers say, "Flat Earth is here to make conspiracy theorists look crazy!!"
Rick DeLano says, "Flat Earth is here to make geocentrism look crazy!!"
Bart Sibrel says, "Flat Earth is here to destroy all my work exposing NASA fakery and make me and all moon-landing deniers look crazy!!"
Everybody thinks the flat earth movement is out to get them.
The earth is a flat plane, enclosed by the firmament above, holding back the waters therein, exactly as described in the Bible. It is provable mathematically. It is provable with your own senses. Your eyes do not decieve you. The math shows no curvature, and does not lie. Even the microwave radiation illustration in Rick DeLano's docuмentary illustrates the dome over the flat earth.
The Bible says when Our Lord Jesus Christ returns at His Second Coming on a cloud in the sky that the entire world will see Him coming in His glory. That is only possible on a FLAT earth.
-
I see we have Pfeifferites here. :jester:
Father Pfeiffer believes earth is stationary, but doesn't believe its flat. He is mistaken.
This is true.
I have spoken with Fr. Pfeiffer about it myself. He does not believe it is flat.
-
The explanation of how the seasons work on the globe earth model completely destroys geocentrism. The two literally cannot coexist together.
All of us here, as Catholics, should be geocentrists, right? (If you are a Catholic who is not a geocentrist, then I think you probably need to read your Bible again...LOL).
But, if you are a geocentrist (like say, Rick DeLano...LOL) and claim to be a Catholic geocentrist (which, by definition holds the earth to be stationary and UNMOVING) then you absolutley CANNOT accept the present scientific explanation for how the seasons work.
Under the heliocentric model, science says the seasons are caused by the earth "tilting" as it rotates around the sun. Winter is said to be caused in the southern hemisphere by the earth tilting away and the summer is caused in the northern hemisphere when the earth is said to be tilting toward the sun. However, does it make sense to you that if the sun is so powerful at 93 million miles away to give you a sunburn that a tiny bit of "earth tilt" would have any affect at all on its light or warmth? I should think not!
But, if you are a geocentrist, you believe the earth is NOT rotating around the sun. Nor, would the earth be spinning on its axis. Nor, would the earth be "tilting" on its axis. The geocentric earth is stationary and UNMOVING.
So, if you are a geocentrist, and you hold that the earth is not traveling about the sun, nor spinning, nor tilting, then - what about the seasons?
The only explanation for the seasons that works is the flat earth model.
The sun moves in its "circuit" (as the Bible describes) in a circular path above the earth's center, the North Pole. When the sun is circuiting the earth north of the equator, it is summer in the northern hemisphere. When the sun is circuiting the earth above the equator, it is fall in the north and spring in the south. When the sun is circuiting the earth south of the equator, it is summer in the southern hemisphere and winter in the north.
This is because the sun is close and local. It is NOT 93 million miles away. In order to provide warmth and light it must be CLOSE. In winter, it is literally further away, therefore it provides less warmth and less light.
The earth is provably flat.
-
Earth is not a globe, clearly demonstrated in 200 bullet-point scientific proofs that crush the Copernican lies indoctrinating the world. Scripture was right all along!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
Hey!
Did I just find a flat earth thread??
Awesome!!
I am reading David Wardlaw Scott's book "Terra Firma - Earth Not a Planet Proved From Scripture, Reason and Fact" and I am really enjoying it!
Hey, a real (Catholic) person who sees truth! I love it! Terra Firma is a definite favorite of mine, but then again, all the flat earth books are! There are a few others as good, free to read online, just type these into a search engine and enjoy. If you already know about them, let me know what you think.
Christian Topography by Cosmas Indiocoplestes (a Catholic reference)
Zetetic Astronomy Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbatham)
The Earth is Not a Globe by Rectangle
All phenomenal books and totally free to read. Hope I got the names/authors right, I'm doing this from memory and its late. Let me know if you have trouble finding any of them. The last one is extremely detailed. Enjoy!
-
:applause:
i'll use a reductio argument
Suppose the earth is flat and of finite area. Then if a ship traverses from point A heading west, not changing course, then it will never return to point A because it will fall off the earth. However, ships heading west do return to point A even if they continue on the same course. Therefore, the supposition is wrong. The earth is not flat.
This person is displaying their complete ignorance of the topic of the thread.
If one has taken five seconds to view a flat earth map or model, one would instantaneously understand how it is indeed possible to sail west and end up where you started.
It is a flat CIRCULAR plane.
-
:rahrah:
Flat Earthers are extreme purveyors of internet agitprop.
To me, this is one of the most humorous criticisms of flat earth - everybody thinks it's a personal attack on THEIR favorite conspiracy to make them look bad, or dumb, or "discredit" them.
"Flat earth is a psy-op!"
It's already been said earlier in this very thread (which I haven't fully finished reading): "Flat earth is here to make Catholics look like nuts!"
9-11 Truthers say, "Flat Earth is here to make conspiracy theorists look crazy!!"
Rick DeLano says, "Flat Earth is here to make geocentrism look crazy!!"
Bart Sibrel says, "Flat Earth is here to destroy all my work exposing NASA fakery and make me and all moon-landing deniers look crazy!!"
Everybody thinks the flat earth movement is out to get them.
The earth is a flat plane, enclosed by the firmament above, holding back the waters therein, exactly as described in the Bible. It is provable mathematically. It is provable with your own senses. Your eyes do not decieve you. The math shows no curvature, and does not lie. Even the microwave radiation illustration in Rick DeLano's docuмentary illustrates the dome over the flat earth.
The Bible says when Our Lord Jesus Christ returns at His Second Coming on a cloud in the sky that the entire world will see Him coming in His glory. That is only possible on a FLAT earth.
-
The explanation of how the seasons work on the globe earth model completely destroys geocentrism. The two literally cannot coexist together.
All of us here, as Catholics, should be geocentrists, right? (If you are a Catholic who is not a geocentrist, then I think you probably need to read your Bible again...LOL).
But, if you are a geocentrist (like say, Rick DeLano...LOL) and claim to be a Catholic geocentrist (which, by definition holds the earth to be stationary and UNMOVING) then you absolutley CANNOT accept the present scientific explanation for how the seasons work.
Under the heliocentric model, science says the seasons are caused by the earth "tilting" as it rotates around the sun. Winter is said to be caused in the southern hemisphere by the earth tilting away and the summer is caused in the northern hemisphere when the earth is said to be tilting toward the sun. However, does it make sense to you that if the sun is so powerful at 93 million miles away to give you a sunburn that a tiny bit of "earth tilt" would have any affect at all on its light or warmth? I should think not!
But, if you are a geocentrist, you believe the earth is NOT rotating around the sun. Nor, would the earth be spinning on its axis. Nor, would the earth be "tilting" on its axis. The geocentric earth is stationary and UNMOVING.
So, if you are a geocentrist, and you hold that the earth is not traveling about the sun, nor spinning, nor tilting, then - what about the seasons?
The only explanation for the seasons that works is the flat earth model.
The sun moves in its "circuit" (as the Bible describes) in a circular path above the earth's center, the North Pole. When the sun is circuiting the earth north of the equator, it is summer in the northern hemisphere. When the sun is circuiting the earth above the equator, it is fall in the north and spring in the south. When the sun is circuiting the earth south of the equator, it is summer in the southern hemisphere and winter in the north.
This is because the sun is close and local. It is NOT 93 million miles away. In order to provide warmth and light it must be CLOSE. In winter, it is literally further away, therefore it provides less warmth and less light.
The earth is provably flat.
Indeed earth is provably flat, stationary and like the Church, a true foundation. Sadly, the globalist indoctrination via modern scientists and atheists is so deep, so profound even Catholics get vicious and rude trying to defend the indefensible. They sure love their science falsely so-called. Rather than being on the level (ha, pun) and examining the evidence, they resort to arguing in circles (ha, more pun). Seems to me its probably relativity that makes modernism go round.
-
Short video on NASA admitting ALL photos of the entire round earth are faked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRbc28PSrI&list=PLt36ZcQGl6srt_-aQlEAaHQeizaxwnh3v&index=7
-
A correction on the list of books above. The third book on the list is actually called Zetetic Cosmogony; Or, Conclusive Evidence that the World is Not a Rotating-revolving-globe, But a Stationary Plane Circle
Here's the link.
https://books.google.com/books/reader?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&source=gbs_atb_hover&pg=GBS.PA109
-
Aryzia,
I read this thread because it's extremely boring today at work. I'm the furthest thing from a scientist that you can find, but a few observations:
1) just because you believe that heliocentrism is false does NOT mean that 'flat earth' is true.
2) just because nasa has lied about many things does NOT mean 'flat earth' is true.
3) just because geocentrism is in the Bible does NOT mean 'flat earth' is true.
I don't know if 'flat earth' is true or not (and i'm debating whether I care) but I do know that your logic above is faulty and your debate skills are uncharitable. It's also a bit prideful to start a thread where you speak as if you're an expert but your main response to quetions/rebuttals is 'watch the video'. If you're going to be passionate about something, and call people names, at least be able to explain your position. If you cannot explain it without the use of a video, then you are not an expert and you should act accordingly, with a bit more humility. People may be more open to your position that way. Otherwise, you come across as a nut.
p.s. I plan to watch a video. Not sure which one, as you posted many. Thx for the off-the-wall topic.
-
You still can't provide for Longitude and Latitude of the expanded flat Earth Southern Hemisphere. It's a very simple challenge that you continue to deflect. Probably because there is no accurate Flat Earth Map, nor can there ever be. Flat Earthers are extreme purveyors of internet agitprop.
http://www.mathworks.com/help/aerotbx/ug/lla2flat.html How to estimate longitude and latitude on a flat earth.
My turn: Are you one of those that believes man went to the moon?
If you're going to post a link, make sure you have a grasp of the subject matter first.
As marvelously free from any traceable explanation behind those formulations are, they still neglect to adjust for the displacement of Longitude and Latitude. It's the mathematical equivalent of visually squashing the globe. Like you, this guy goes about trying to develop his ideas based upon a faulty conclusion. If you hold that the current L&L measurements are correct, there is literally no room for the argument. End of story.
Your attempt at drawing me into completely unrelated conspiracy theories in order to discredit me, indicates that your mission here isn't really to prove a single thing to me or anyone else. Perhaps it's to smear the forums until they're a mass of chaos and confusion. You are sounding more desperate and frenetic. You most certainly have not been able to handle the L&L question in any way shape or form since I posted it.
-
Aryzia,
I read this thread because it's extremely boring today at work. I'm the furthest thing from a scientist that you can find, but a few observations:
1) just because you believe that heliocentrism is false does NOT mean that 'flat earth' is true.
2) just because nasa has lied about many things does NOT mean 'flat earth' is true.
3) just because geocentrism is in the Bible does NOT mean 'flat earth' is true.
I don't know if 'flat earth' is true or not (and i'm debating whether I care) but I do know that your logic above is faulty and your debate skills are uncharitable. It's also a bit prideful to start a thread where you speak as if you're an expert but your main response to quetions/rebuttals is 'watch the video'. If you're going to be passionate about something, and call people names, at least be able to explain your position. If you cannot explain it without the use of a video, then you are not an expert and you should act accordingly, with a bit more humility. People may be more open to your position that
My response to
1.) Because there are only two systems at odds, I would disagree. Sadly, most people today do not know that geocentrism, the system nobody wants to talk about, has always included a flat earth, so its geocentrism or heliocentrism and it isn't the latter. There is no such thing as the geocentrism of modern day where a globe hangs in space unmoving.
2. I heartily disagree because the number one reason ppl believe in round earth is because Nasa and Co. visually indoctrinate them with their lies. This is where questions should begin, why are they lying? What do they gain? Answers will incite many serious reasons to know the truth about the world in which we live.
3. I must also disagree with this last one for the aforesaid reasons and because scripture, as St. Augstine said so beautifully:"Major est Scripturae auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas." "Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind." --St. Augustine, Commentary on the Book of Genesis
As for the uncharitable, you are correct, it is true I let the vitriol get the best of me and I admittedly turned the firehose back on ppl, but I'm simply not going to allow myself to indulge that kind of volley in the future. I've been tolerating the 'gates of hates' for 7 or 8 years, mostly from pagans so I think I expected more from fellow Catholics. Not an excuse, just sayin'.
As for the sending vs explaining thing, I've explained for years, even in the most eloquent terms (using someone else's words) and found that ppl must search and study for themselves because the nature of the subject is so vast. I'm posting these videos because ppl are visual and benefit from it it. However, when asked, I will explain briefly. The problem comes when ppl ask questions that take a book length to answer.
So thanks for your critique, it is well received and correction is deserved.
-
Aryzia,
I respect you a lot more since you admitted being a bit 'overzealous' at times. Been there, done that too.
But...your quote: There is no such thing as the geocentrism of modern day where a globe hangs in space unmoving.
Practically speaking, there is. I believe in geocentrism, but always imagined the earth being a globe, as is popularly shown. This is the typical mental image. Point is, this image could be totally false, but you have to accept that a large majority of your audience believes this is 'typical' geocentrism.
Converting someone from heliocentrism to geocentrism is one step. The next step is from geocentrism to 'flat earth'. You can't combine the two and argue that a person who doesn't believe in flat earth is a nasa supporting, copernicus loving, anti-catholic, godless pagan. You are trying to convert people from 2 different modes of thought, while using the same arguments. Doesn't work and is confusing.
Also, getting people to believe in geocentrism is good and catholic. Heliocentrism is definitely anti-catholic and there is a wide philosophical and scriptural divide between the two. But is there really a catholic or philosophical problem between a 'round' vs 'flat, circular' earth? I don't think it's even CLOSE to the same level with helio vs geo. So, if someone agrees with geocentrism, aren't they about 90% correct (assuming 'flat earth' is true)? In other words, cut them some slack! They're on your team!
-
You still can't provide for Longitude and Latitude of the expanded flat Earth Southern Hemisphere. It's a very simple challenge that you continue to deflect. Probably because there is no accurate Flat Earth Map, nor can there ever be. Flat Earthers are extreme purveyors of internet agitprop.
http://www.mathworks.com/help/aerotbx/ug/lla2flat.html How to estimate longitude and latitude on a flat earth.
My turn: Are you one of those that believes man went to the moon?
If you're going to post a link, make sure you have a grasp of the subject matter first.
As marvelously free from any traceable explanation behind those formulations are, they still neglect to adjust for the displacement of Longitude and Latitude. It's the mathematical equivalent of visually squashing the globe. Like you, this guy goes about trying to develop his ideas based upon a faulty conclusion. If you hold that the current L&L measurements are correct, there is literally no room for the argument. End of story.
Your attempt at drawing me into completely unrelated conspiracy theories in order to discredit me, indicates that your mission here isn't really to prove a single thing to me or anyone else. Perhaps it's to smear the forums until they're a mass of chaos and confusion. You are sounding more desperate and frenetic. You most certainly have not been able to handle the L&L question in any way shape or form since I posted it.
Because the subject matter is such as it is, it takes time to bring it to full light. The problem with your request is that it supposes there is a perfect flattening of the sphere, or as you say, squashing the globe. The problem is, they had lots of time inflating the globe and making the math operate and they got all the tricks to do it. (Notice on google earth they fail miserably to sphere the flat) There are many ways of approaching the subject of fe and I gave you the best answer for your request (at my disposal at this time). However, all of the problems (lat/long included) disintegrate when one views the science with the intent to see its merits rather than approach from the view of discrediting it at all costs using math alone or one question alone. Let's be clear, the math works better on flat earth than on a globe, but there are steps to switching from one to another I admit I do not know.
I do not want to draw anyone in who isn't willing. Simply refrain from bothering. I'm not trying to discredit you, but bring the truth to light and discredit modern atheistic evolutionary science. Just because I'm woefully inadequate at it doesn't mean I'm wrong or that the subject matter is unworthy. If Nasa is lying, we have a big problem. Something incomprehensible is at stake besides the billion$ JPL, NASA, RASA and others have raked in over the years.
Sorry to send you to other places for your answers, but if you are interested, take the time to come at it from other angles before you discard it. It is a fascinating and beautiful truth of God's creation and its been under wraps for centuries by evil design provable with just a few hours of research. Can't help it sounds conspiratorial, it actually is. Good luck...
-
Somewhat like Pax Vobis, I have some time of leisure right now. There are several comments I could make just from experience.
I've worked out in the field all my life. I will try to make a parallel between two things which I'm familiar with in my occupation(s).
Engineering: assuming 2+2=4
Land development: assuming world=globe
Regardless of what I think 2+2 equals, if I don't use the "established absolute," my bridge, building or whatever, is going to fail.
Same can be said in regards to land development. Boundaries, for the most part, have been established for centuries, (Long before NASA and GPS.) They are legally defined and recorded. So again, regardless of what I may personally believe (or imagine ) I must follow the "established absolute." Just a recent example in the last week. My property was homesteaded over a century ago. It was surveyed, probably using a sextant, and I need to reestablish a fence which has been destroyed over the last 50 yrs. For legal reasons, it had to be re-surveyed. The surveyor who did the work used GPS. When it was all said and done, the boundaries where within a couple of feet to those points which where established using mechanical equipment. Mind you, all these legal boundaries where established over a century ago, and we are able to return to almost the same exact point over a century later using a completely different tool/method.
-
Aryzia,
I respect you a lot more since you admitted being a bit 'overzealous' at times. Been there, done that too.
But...your quote: There is no such thing as the geocentrism of modern day where a globe hangs in space unmoving.
Practically speaking, there is. I believe in geocentrism, but always imagined the earth being a globe, as is popularly shown. This is the typical mental image. Point is, this image could be totally false, but you have to accept that a large majority of your audience believes this is 'typical' geocentrism.
Converting someone from heliocentrism to geocentrism is one step. The next step is from geocentrism to 'flat earth'. You can't combine the two and argue that a person who doesn't believe in flat earth is a nasa supporting, copernicus loving, anti-catholic, godless pagan. You are trying to convert people from 2 different modes of thought, while using the same arguments. Doesn't work and is confusing.
Also, getting people to believe in geocentrism is good and catholic. Heliocentrism is definitely anti-catholic and there is a wide philosophical and scriptural divide between the two. But is there really a catholic or philosophical problem between a 'round' vs 'flat, circular' earth? I don't think it's even CLOSE to the same level with helio vs geo. So, if someone agrees with geocentrism, aren't they about 90% correct (assuming 'flat earth' is true)? In other words, cut them some slack! They're on your team!
I do admit that the large majority of modern geocentrics believe in the global geocentrism. It is a problem. However, one of the best arguments for the flat, stationary earth is scripture's description of earth with the firmament above, stretch out like a tent and references to the ends of the earth. Another good one is, that if Nasa lies about earth being heliocentric, and pretended to put a man on the moon in order to give a very powerful visual ball earth, why wouldn't they also be lying about it being flat? They can't even show us one authentic picture of earth! We know all the ancient world believed in a flat earth. It isn't new. Were they all that retarded? If one just begins with these and asks questions, they can find the truth.
Yes, I believe there is a Catholic and philosophical reason to believe in the flat earth. Firstly, the sphere doesn't work on any level. (literally) My knowing round earth is a lie appears to beg the question, but my best argument here is that a round moving earth is nothing but chaos, a satanic obfuscation of truth and attempt to alienate men from God and make orphans of mankind. Where is heaven on a ball? Up? Out? Beyond? Doesn't matter? When up means "out" and not up, you have an inaccuracy that undermines Faith. If Jesus ascended to heaven and went up for some, but He went down relative to others, you have at least an implicit denial of the Ascension. These fundamentals do harm to the mind as well. God explains to us in scripture that we must measure carefully, laying a foundation before we build. That not only speaks to faith, but in reality. The round earth notion is so chaotic with regard to laying a foundation of any size, it necessarily violates reason and truth. Everything is relative on a globe. Nothing is square. Nothing is true. Things like east and west as basic realities become relative directions only. Facing the east (for the mass) becomes not so important since it isn't even possible. People cannot stick to the bottom and sides of a ball. And if they think they can, that kind of fantasy leads to all sorts of nutty reasoning we see so rampant today. Truly, round earth is the bulwark of the new religion where truth is never absolute. I'm still trying to find the reference I found years ago when what I believe to be was Pope Alexander VII pounded his desk yelling "Damned Pythagorean doctrine!" And either he, or another pope claimed that the heliocentrism/Pythagorean doctrine denied the Incarnation. I hate to use these as proofs since I cannot verify them, but I'm hoping someone out there will come across them in the interest of truth and bring them to the attention of all. Its part of the reason I'm doing this here is to get help expose the lie, and unearth the teachings of the Early Church Fathers in this matter.
This may sound beyond the pale, but I will state what I believe round (moving) earth does: First and foremost, it hides God. But it also provides hiding places from God giving man an imaginary platform for speaking and acting relatively and not as God requested when He asked us to say yes when we mean yes and no when we mean no and that anything else is from the devil. Round earth is tantamount to Adam and Eve's fig leaf and provides an inroad to man's soul by the one who recreated the earth in his own image, Satan. I believe the heliocentric "globalists" use the round earth lie to enslave the minds of men so that in believing a lie, they begin more perfectly to serve him in all matters.
It reminds me of Christ's complaint when He said in John 5:43 "I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive."
-
So, if someone agrees with geocentrism, aren't they about 90% correct (assuming 'flat earth' is true)? In other words, cut them some slack! They're on your team!
Pax, it might seem that what you describe should be so, but it really is not. Rick DeLano, in particular, reserves an extremely high level of vitriol for flat earth.
The best objection to geocentrism being "a ball hanging in space" is the seasons, as I described in a previous post above.
Geocentrists who believe in a "ball hanging in space" have utterly no way to account for the seasons.
The earth cannot spin on its axis in geocentrism.
The earth cannot tilt on its axis in geocentrism.
Therefore, how do you explain the seasons under that idea of geocentrism? In short, you cannot - it is not possible.
I also find it to be a case of cognitive dissonance that the makers of The Principle film will accept the data obtained (microwave background radiation) by NASA which points to a stationary geocentric universe, so they accuse NASA of lying about the truth, but yet they implicitly trust that NASA went to the moon! It's just literally CRAZY to hold those two thoughts.
I even heard an interview with Robert Sungenis last year on the topic of Biblical flat earth, and when asked about the scripture passage where the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed Our Lord all the kingdoms of the earth Sungenis said, "Well, I don't think the Bible meant he showed Him ALL the kingdoms...I think it was just a metaphor...."
Oh, really?? So, now he is saying he does NOT take the Bible LITERALLY. Well, he takes it literally for SOME chapters, like Genesis's description of the Great Flood or Creation, but certainly NOT the part about the Lord being shown ALL THE KINGDOMS of the earth.
Again, cognitive dissonance - you CANNOT have it both ways. The Bible is LITERAL - even for the parts you do not understand, or don't seem possible to YOU. It is TRUTH - literally.
-
If you're going to post a link, make sure you have a grasp of the subject matter first.
My turn - let's see if Croixalist has a grasp of math!
According to the accepted heliocentric, ball-earth science promoted measurements of the earth, the earth has a circuмference (C) of 25,000 miles. It has a radius (R) of about 4,000 miles.
According to spherical trigonometry, one can calculate the expected drop of the horizon due to the earth's (supposed) curvature.
I used to live in Chicago. For the past year, a nice young man across the lake in Michigan has been taking pictures of the city. He has MANY of them. The problem is, the location across the lake is 59 miles away. According to the math, the city should not be visible at all from the shore in Michigan. But, there it is, all the same.
See photos here:
https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com/Looking-toward-Chicago-from-Mi/
Here's the math, if you're interested, you can calculate it for yourself!
"Since 8 inches per mile squared is sort of a general quick way to solve the earth's curvature, I decided to use more precise (and longer) methods of calculating the earth's curvature with the help of web2.0calc.com, which allows many digits after the decimal point. Using spherical trigonometry:
1. Earth's mean radius is about 3,959 miles, according to SPACE.com.
2. Earth's mean circuмference (when calculated) according to the same website is about 24,881 miles.
3. When we calculate that the Earth's circuмference (24,881 miles) divided up into degrees (360 degrees in a circle), we find that 1 degree would be 69.1138 miles.
4. 1 mile by comparison would only be 0.0144688718299103734 degrees.
5. With a triangle with point A at the center of the ball earth, point B at any location on the surface of the earth, and point C exactly one mile of traveling across the surface of the earth away from point B, the angle formed at the center of the earth would also be 0.0144688718299103734 degrees.
6. Since points B and C are exactly the same distance from point A and form from the same angle, the two angles formed at the surface of the earth must then be equal.
7. Since any triangle contains 180 degrees, and with the angle at Earth's center being 0.0144688718299103734 degrees, we must use subtraction to discover that the remaining angles (which are equal) add up to 179.9855311281700896266 degrees.
8. Dividing in half, we find that either of the two surface angles are 89.9927655640850448133 degrees.
9. With the line of sight from point A to point B going in a straight line above the curve the earth would produce in 1 mile combined with the angle of the center of the earth, we find that the surface angle formed by point A plus the 89.9927655640850448133 degrees of the inward angles add up to exactly 90 degrees (draw this on paper if you're confused already).
10. With the angle formed at the surface of the earth being 90 minus 89.9927655640850448133, we find that the angle is exactly 0.0072344359149551867 degrees.
11. With the line of sight towards point B, is thus formed another 90 degree angle from the line of sight to point B.
12. With the core triangle two lines meeting at the center of the earth each being 3,959 miles long, we can measure that one degree of that triangle would be 3,959 miles divided into the corresponding 89.9927655640850448133 degrees. That is about 43.992425115336004037324 miles per degree of the core triangle.
13. With the line at the top of the core triangle and at the bottom of the surface triangle corresponding to the core angle of 0.0144688718299103734 degrees, we can multiply this angle by 43.992425115336004037324 miles to find that the distance of this line is 0.6365207604807267183115613182834683767816 miles long.
14. With the baseline just calculated as being 0.6365207604807267183115613182834683767816 miles, and since the corresponding surface angle is exactly 90 degrees, we find that 1 degree in this triangle is 0.0070724528942302968701284590920385375197956 miles.
15. With the angle at point A being 0.0072344359149551867 degrees, we can calculate the corresponding side (which is how far the line of sight is away from the curvature of the earth in 1 mile) is 0.00005116520722484841600508440455632175872145506150553814383852 miles.
16. 0.00005116520722484841600508440455632175872145506150553814383852 miles is 3.2418275297663949885 inches.
This means that the correct amount of downward curvature is NOT 8 inches per miles squared, but about 3.2 inches per mile squared. Why the large discrepancy? Because the calculation of 8 inches per mile squared was originally made about 200 years ago with the book "Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe".
Two hundred years ago, there were not advanced calculators, nor was there a precise number for the circuмference of the earth. Now that more calculations assuming a round ball earth have been done and since we now have more advanced calculators, the correct amount of curvature is thus about 3.2 inches per the distance squared. An easy way to utilize this correct number without going through all of my 16 steps is to simple do this:
distance in miles x distance in miles x 3.2 inches = inches of downward curvature.
Take, for example, the famous Bedford Level experiments. Rowbotham was able to see across the level for 6 miles. Using the above simple calculation, we find:
6 miles x 6 miles x 3.2 inches = 115.2 inches of downward curvature.
To make it more simple we can convert those inches to feet by dividing it into 12.
This would make it 9.6 feet of downward curvature, not 16. While this may seem insignificant (either way, Rowbotham shouldn't have been able to see the boat if the earth was round), it is necessary for me to put this out so that future calculations of Earth's impossible curvature can be more precise.
Enjoy the view.
-
Somewhat like Pax Vobis, I have some time of leisure right now. There are several comments I could make just from experience.
I've worked out in the field all my life. I will try to make a parallel between two things which I'm familiar with in my occupation(s).
Engineering: assuming 2+2=4
Land development: assuming world=globe
Regardless of what I think 2+2 equals, if I don't use the "established absolute," my bridge, building or whatever, is going to fail.
Same can be said in regards to land development. Boundaries, for the most part, have been established for centuries, (Long before NASA and GPS.) They are legally defined and recorded. So again, regardless of what I may personally believe (or imagine ) I must follow the "established absolute." Just a recent example in the last week. My property was homesteaded over a century ago. It was surveyed, probably using a sextant, and I need to reestablish a fence which has been destroyed over the last 50 yrs. For legal reasons, it had to be re-surveyed. The surveyor who did the work used GPS. When it was all said and done, the boundaries where within a couple of feet to those points which where established using mechanical equipment. Mind you, all these legal boundaries where established over a century ago, and we are able to return to almost the same exact point over a century later using a completely different tool/method.
Here is a railroad engineer on the subject you reference above, pg 109 Zetetic Cosmogony (available free to read online)
"Mr. J. C. Bourne, in his magnificent work called 'The History of the Great Western Railway ' . . . . which is more than 118 miles long . . . . ' the whole line with the exception of the inclined planes, may be regarded practically as level.' " One hundred and eighteen miles of LEVEL railway, and yet the surface on which it is projected a globe ? Impossible. It cannot be. Early in 1898 I met Mr. Hughes, chief officer of the steamer " City of Lincoln." This gentleman told me he had projected thousands of miles of level railway in South America, and never heard of any allowance for curvature being made On one occasion he surveyed over one thousand miles of railway which was a perfect straight line all the way. It is well known that in the Argentine Republic and other parts of South America, there are railways thousands of miles long without curve or gradient. In the " Cruise of the Falcon," by that intrepid traveller and navigator, E. F. Knight, it is stated in Vol. 2, pages 1 and 2 : " From Tucuмan to Cordova we were carried by the Government railway." " There are no curves on the way, the rails being carried in ONE PERFECTLY STRAIGHT LINE ACROSS THE LEVEL PLAINS." In projecting railways, the world is acknowledged to be a plane, and if it were a globe the rules of projection have yet to be discovered. Level railways proye a level world, to the utter confusion of the globular school of impractical men with high salaries and little brains.
-
I don't know if 'flat earth' is true or not (and i'm debating whether I care) but I do know that your logic above is faulty and your debate skills are uncharitable. It's also a bit prideful to start a thread where you speak as if you're an expert but your main response to quetions/rebuttals is 'watch the video'. If you're going to be passionate about something, and call people names, at least be able to explain your position. If you cannot explain it without the use of a video, then you are not an expert and you should act accordingly, with a bit more humility. People may be more open to your position that way. Otherwise, you come across as a nut.
p.s. I plan to watch a video. Not sure which one, as you posted many. Thx for the off-the-wall topic.
The use of a video by aryzia to explain the FE model is NECESSARY - it has nothing to do with her being "prideful." That's quite rude.
The reason why it is necessary for you to SEE a video when being introduced to the topic of flat earth is because I may indeed be able to give you a simple written explanation, but you may have trouble VISUALIZING it without an illustration.
Your whole life is spent learning and visualizing the heliocentric, ball-earth model. it is difficult to naturally visualize the flat earth model at first, unless someone DRAWS you a PICTURE.
-
Awww, but, I'm also a machinist. One of the first things you learn is "all measurements are approximate". There is no such thing as "perfect" in the practical sense.
-
Awww, but, I'm also a machinist. One of the first things you learn is "all measurements are approximate". There is no such thing as "perfect" in the practical sense.
Technically true, for man especially, but measurements of flat do not have to be perfect to provably not be spherical.
-
Aryzia,
My knowing round earth is a lie appears to beg the question, but my best argument here is that a round moving earth is nothing but chaos,
Again, you're lumping multiple theories together, which is not correct.
Theory 1 - heliocentricsm
Theory 2 - geocentrism, with a fixed, round earth (what i've been taught)
Theory 3 - geocentrism, with a moveable, round earth
Theory 4 - geocentrism, with a fixed, flat earth
I would appreciate if you would understand the difference between theory 2 and 3. All arguments which scientifically prove the earth is fixed do NOT necessarily prove the earth is flat. I've always been taught the earth was fixed, no spinning, yet it was round. Maybe I'm wrong, but don't combine theories when you're arguing against them.
The use of a video by aryzia to explain the FE model is NECESSARY - it has nothing to do with her being "prideful." That's quite rude.
I don't mean to be rude, just pointing out that Aryzia 'answered' at least 6 questions by saying 'watch the video'. I expect more from someone who argues as if they are an expert.
Therefore, how do you explain the seasons under that idea of geocentrism? In short, you cannot - it is not possible.
I was always told that the sun spins around the earth, gradually shifting from top to bottom, throughout the year, as the seasons change in each hemisphere. I'm not a science guy, so this could easily be wrong but it made sense in 5th grade. ha ha. You bring up some interesting points and I will watch some videos. I admire your passion.
-
Theory 1 - heliocentricsm
Theory 2 - geocentrism, with a fixed, round earth (what i've been taught)
Theory 3 - geocentrism, with a moveable, round earth
Theory 4 - geocentrism, with a fixed, flat earth
This may be a topic for another thread, but a commonly overlooked fact is that Theories 1, 2, and 3 are actually completely indistinguishable from one another. The difference between them is one of philosophy (and mathematical convenience).
It is a well known fact of mathematics that motion can only be measured relative to a fixed frame of reference. So when one asks what the fixed center of the universe is, that question can only be answered conclusively if one has a point of reference outside the universe, which is (by definition) impossible.
You can answer the question using philosophical arguments or by appealing to the Bible, but the fact is that the only difference from a scientific standpoint is how hard it is to manipulate the equations for whatever project you happen to be working on.
-
So when one asks what the fixed center of the universe is, that question can only be answered conclusively if one has a point of reference outside the universe, which is (by definition) impossible.
This is not true at all.
This is even addressed in the geocentrism docuмentary.
You absolutely do not need an outside reference point to find the center of God's Creation. To say it is unknowable is akin to the unbeliever saying it is impossible to know whether God exists. He did not leave His existence to be without evidence, neither did He leave the center to be without evidence.
-
You bring up some interesting points and I will watch some videos. I admire your passion.
Thanks!
-
Aryzia,
My knowing round earth is a lie appears to beg the question, but my best argument here is that a round moving earth is nothing but chaos,
Again, you're lumping multiple theories together, which is not correct.
Theory 1 - heliocentricsm
Theory 2 - geocentrism, with a fixed, round earth (what i've been taught)
Theory 3 - geocentrism, with a moveable, round earth
Theory 4 - geocentrism, with a fixed, flat earth
I would appreciate if you would understand the difference between theory 2 and 3. All arguments which scientifically prove the earth is fixed do NOT necessarily prove the earth is flat. I've always been taught the earth was fixed, no spinning, yet it was round. Maybe I'm wrong, but don't combine theories when you're arguing against them.
The use of a video by aryzia to explain the FE model is NECESSARY - it has nothing to do with her being "prideful." That's quite rude.
I don't mean to be rude, just pointing out that Aryzia 'answered' at least 6 questions by saying 'watch the video'. I expect more from someone who argues as if they are an expert.
Therefore, how do you explain the seasons under that idea of geocentrism? In short, you cannot - it is not possible.
I was always told that the sun spins around the earth, gradually shifting from top to bottom, throughout the year, as the seasons change in each hemisphere. I'm not a science guy, so this could easily be wrong but it made sense in 5th grade. ha ha. You bring up some interesting points and I will watch some videos. I admire your passion.
Ok, lets deal with number 2 and 4. I was taught number 1/3 also, which are identical. But that is the theory that we are questioning by way of number 2 and 4. The reason number 2 doesn't work is that although mathematically identical to 1/3 (so they say) number 1/3 is not feasible without curvature or movement. When curvature is proven, no problem, number 2 becomes viable since scripture unequivocally denies the movement of earth, calling it fixed in its own foundation so 1/3 are out. Can't get much clearer. As for sphericity, there is no proof of that, but rather, all proofs show that earth is a plane. That is why I sent videos to show the lack of curvature shown physically impossible with experiments made both by amateurs and professionals by virtue of telephoto lenses and extensive measurement. There is no curvature at all, let alone curvature commensurate with a globe 25,000 miles in circuмference. Let me know if you're interested in a video to prove this.
-
Theory 1 - heliocentricsm
Theory 2 - geocentrism, with a fixed, round earth (what i've been taught)
Theory 3 - geocentrism, with a moveable, round earth
Theory 4 - geocentrism, with a fixed, flat earth
This may be a topic for another thread, but a commonly overlooked fact is that Theories 1, 2, and 3 are actually completely indistinguishable from one another. The difference between them is one of philosophy (and mathematical convenience).
It is a well known fact of mathematics that motion can only be measured relative to a fixed frame of reference. So when one asks what the fixed center of the universe is, that question can only be answered conclusively if one has a point of reference outside the universe, which is (by definition) impossible.
You can answer the question using philosophical arguments or by appealing to the Bible, but the fact is that the only difference from a scientific standpoint is how hard it is to manipulate the equations for whatever project you happen to be working on.
Firstly, theory 1 and 2 are completely different from each other. Number 1 and 3 are the same thing. Number 1 assumes earth is barrelling through space at 550,000 mph and orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph and rotating on its axis at 1050 mph. That's an awful lot of movement we are not able to prove. If you can't prove movement because of some argument about frame of reference (which is a sham they like to use against ppl to get them to quit arguing) then all bets are off and we can never know anything about earth's movement or lack thereof.
Number 2 is also untenable since curvature has never been demonstrated, but with the horizon rising to the level of the eye of the observer no matter how high one goes, a plane is thereby proven.
-
This is a good article with many illustrations that show with circular path of the sun over the flat plane of the earth:
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2016/06/arctic-midnight-sun-proves-flat-earth.html
-
So when one asks what the fixed center of the universe is, that question can only be answered conclusively if one has a point of reference outside the universe, which is (by definition) impossible.
This is not true at all.
This is even addressed in the geocentrism docuмentary.
You absolutely do not need an outside reference point to find the center of God's Creation. To say it is unknowable is akin to the unbeliever saying it is impossible to know whether God exists. He did not leave His existence to be without evidence, neither did He leave the center to be without evidence.
Exactly mw2016. And if one reads scripture, it becomes evident that earth is the great center around which the moon sun and stars rotate to light its sky and give times for seasons etc.
-
So when one asks what the fixed center of the universe is, that question can only be answered conclusively if one has a point of reference outside the universe, which is (by definition) impossible.
This is not true at all.
This is even addressed in the geocentrism docuмentary.
You absolutely do not need an outside reference point to find the center of God's Creation. To say it is unknowable is akin to the unbeliever saying it is impossible to know whether God exists. He did not leave His existence to be without evidence, neither did He leave the center to be without evidence.
Which docuмentary are you referring to? There have been several videos linked in this thread.
-
So when one asks what the fixed center of the universe is, that question can only be answered conclusively if one has a point of reference outside the universe, which is (by definition) impossible.
This is not true at all.
This is even addressed in the geocentrism docuмentary.
You absolutely do not need an outside reference point to find the center of God's Creation. To say it is unknowable is akin to the unbeliever saying it is impossible to know whether God exists. He did not leave His existence to be without evidence, neither did He leave the center to be without evidence.
Which docuмentary are you referring to? There have been several videos linked in this thread.
The Principle. It's a geocentrism docuмentary film made by Robert Sungenis & Rick DeLano.
-
Found this today, a good summary list:
14 things that Flat Earthers know:
1. There is a creator. – True
2. We live in a geocentric universe. – True
3. The sun, moon, stars and planets revolve around the stationary earth. – True
4. The sun and moon are smaller and closer than what we’ve been told. – True
5. The moon is self-illuminating, and the moon phases have nothing to do with the sun and earth. – True
6. NASA lies. – True
7. Human beings have never gone further than low earth orbit. – True
8. Human beings have never walked on the moon. – True
9. There are no photos of the entire earth. – True
10. The NASA "Blue Marble" 1972 photo is a painting. – True
11. The EPIC images of the globe are CGI. – True
12. Something was discovered in Antarctica in 1947 that changed the world. – True
13. 33rd Degree Masons (e.g. Sir Winston Churchill, Franklin D.Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Admiral Richard E. Byrd, Buzz Aldrin, Gerald Ford, etc.) have been instrumental in deceiving the world. – True
14. You can’t see any curvature on the horizon, no matter how high up you go. – True
-
What was discovered in 1947?
-
What was discovered in 1947?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrGeCbAEtCk
There is also an interview of Admiral Byrd on youtube where he describes what they found in Antarctica.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czW0iRJuH1A
Admiral Byrd interview
-
if the earth was a flat piece of sod in space, you could not have volcanoes. Volcanoes require heat, and since the underside of the giant space-sod is never exposed to the sun it would be too cold to create lava. How can you have molten rock in freezing conditions? You cannot, therefore the earth is not flat.
-
I've seen upwards of a couple hundred flat earth videos looking for presentable formats for modern Americans to be able to understand. While Eric Dubay comes highly recommended for the scientific approach, he leaves much to be desired when he peddles his non-Christian ideas at times. Others are too acerbic, some are boring, some are quite technical. This video shines as one of the best all around visualizations of what happened to the truth and why, along with a little bit of the science sprinkled in. For anyone interested, pop your popcorn and settle in for this short 27 min movie that will change your mind about flat earth, or at the very least, leave you wanting to know more about your world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZcBdarJ8E
-
So, if someone agrees with geocentrism, aren't they about 90% correct (assuming 'flat earth' is true)? In other words, cut them some slack! They're on your team!
Pax, it might seem that what you describe should be so, but it really is not. Rick DeLano, in particular, reserves an extremely high level of vitriol for flat earth.
The best objection to geocentrism being "a ball hanging in space" is the seasons, as I described in a previous post above.
Geocentrists who believe in a "ball hanging in space" have utterly no way to account for the seasons.
The earth cannot spin on its axis in geocentrism.
The earth cannot tilt on its axis in geocentrism.
Therefore, how do you explain the seasons under that idea of geocentrism? In short, you cannot - it is not possible.
I also find it to be a case of cognitive dissonance that the makers of The Principle film will accept the data obtained (microwave background radiation) by NASA which points to a stationary geocentric universe, so they accuse NASA of lying about the truth, but yet they implicitly trust that NASA went to the moon! It's just literally CRAZY to hold those two thoughts.
I even heard an interview with Robert Sungenis last year on the topic of Biblical flat earth, and when asked about the scripture passage where the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed Our Lord all the kingdoms of the earth Sungenis said, "Well, I don't think the Bible meant he showed Him ALL the kingdoms...I think it was just a metaphor...."
Oh, really?? So, now he is saying he does NOT take the Bible LITERALLY. Well, he takes it literally for SOME chapters, like Genesis's description of the Great Flood or Creation, but certainly NOT the part about the Lord being shown ALL THE KINGDOMS of the earth.
Again, cognitive dissonance - you CANNOT have it both ways. The Bible is LITERAL - even for the parts you do not understand, or don't seem possible to YOU. It is TRUTH - literally.
'Therefore, how do you explain the seasons under that idea of geocentrism? In short, you cannot - it is not possible.'
Of course it is, far simpler than the heliocentric seasons.
There is only one cosmic FACT of Scripture ever decreed as certain, that the sun moves around the earth.
Now the Bible also tells us what the sun and moon do:
And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven,
to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs,
and for seasons, and for days and years. (Gen. 1:14)
It occurs to me that the seasons could cause a problem for the theory that the earth is flat.
On a global earth;
The first astronomical understanding was the relationship between the sun and the earth. From earth we see the sun rise in the east, pass overhead and disappear westward under the horizon until it appears again in the east to continue its movement. This time period, divided into 24 hours, was classed as one astronomical day. This ‘day’ was also divided into two periods, one from sunrise to sunset, called daytime, and sunset to sunrise, called night-time.
The third time period was based on a different movement of the sun. From all points on earth, the daily motion of the sun shifts north and south and back again completing this movement over around 365 days. Careful measuring showed this path, if begun at the centre line around the earth (the Equator), goes 23.5 degrees north (called the Tropic of Cancer) and back down again to a point 23.5 degrees south of the Equator (called the Tropic of Capricorn) when it begins the cycle again. Like a precision instrument, the sun thus continues to deliver spring, summer, autumn and winter to both hemispheres in turn. This period, caused by the will of God, is called a year.
Now the seasons change each year. The southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere each have spring, summer and winter. when it is summer in the NH it is winter in the SH.
On a flat earth are there two hemispheres, and how are the seasons explained both together??
-
So, if someone agrees with geocentrism, aren't they about 90% correct (assuming 'flat earth' is true)? In other words, cut them some slack! They're on your team!
Pax, it might seem that what you describe should be so, but it really is not. Rick DeLano, in particular, reserves an extremely high level of vitriol for flat earth.
The best objection to geocentrism being "a ball hanging in space" is the seasons, as I described in a previous post above.
Geocentrists who believe in a "ball hanging in space" have utterly no way to account for the seasons.
The earth cannot spin on its axis in geocentrism.
The earth cannot tilt on its axis in geocentrism.
Therefore, how do you explain the seasons under that idea of geocentrism? In short, you cannot - it is not possible.
I also find it to be a case of cognitive dissonance that the makers of The Principle film will accept the data obtained (microwave background radiation) by NASA which points to a stationary geocentric universe, so they accuse NASA of lying about the truth, but yet they implicitly trust that NASA went to the moon! It's just literally CRAZY to hold those two thoughts.
I even heard an interview with Robert Sungenis last year on the topic of Biblical flat earth, and when asked about the scripture passage where the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed Our Lord all the kingdoms of the earth Sungenis said, "Well, I don't think the Bible meant he showed Him ALL the kingdoms...I think it was just a metaphor...."
Oh, really?? So, now he is saying he does NOT take the Bible LITERALLY. Well, he takes it literally for SOME chapters, like Genesis's description of the Great Flood or Creation, but certainly NOT the part about the Lord being shown ALL THE KINGDOMS of the earth.
Again, cognitive dissonance - you CANNOT have it both ways. The Bible is LITERAL - even for the parts you do not understand, or don't seem possible to YOU. It is TRUTH - literally.
'Therefore, how do you explain the seasons under that idea of geocentrism? In short, you cannot - it is not possible.'
Of course it is, far simpler than the heliocentric seasons.
There is only one cosmic FACT of Scripture ever decreed as certain, that the sun moves around the earth.
Now the Bible also tells us what the sun and moon do:
And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven,
to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs,
and for seasons, and for days and years. (Gen. 1:14)
It occurs to me that the seasons could cause a problem for the theory that the earth is flat.
On a global earth;
The first astronomical understanding was the relationship between the sun and the earth. From earth we see the sun rise in the east, pass overhead and disappear westward under the horizon until it appears again in the east to continue its movement. This time period, divided into 24 hours, was classed as one astronomical day. This ‘day’ was also divided into two periods, one from sunrise to sunset, called daytime, and sunset to sunrise, called night-time.
The third time period was based on a different movement of the sun. From all points on earth, the daily motion of the sun shifts north and south and back again completing this movement over around 365 days. Careful measuring showed this path, if begun at the centre line around the earth (the Equator), goes 23.5 degrees north (called the Tropic of Cancer) and back down again to a point 23.5 degrees south of the Equator (called the Tropic of Capricorn) when it begins the cycle again. Like a precision instrument, the sun thus continues to deliver spring, summer, autumn and winter to both hemispheres in turn. This period, caused by the will of God, is called a year.
Now the seasons change each year. The southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere each have spring, summer and winter. when it is summer in the NH it is winter in the SH.
On a flat earth are there two hemispheres, and how are the seasons explained both together??
On a flat earth it is exactly as you described - the sun is travelling in its circuit above between the two endpoints, north to south at 23.5 degrees, that give definition to our seasons.
It is the SUN that is moving - NOT the earth tilting, which is how it is explained in heliocentrism and geocentrism.
But, that is a contradiction against the Bible. The Bible explicitly describes a motionless earth. Therefore, the earth cannot be tilting. It is only the sun that is moving.
A hemisphere (or maybe we should call it a "hemi-plane" to distingguish) is not the three dimensional shape as it is on a sphere. The hemiplane is a half-circle. On a globe earth a hemisphere is a sphere cut in half.
Therefore, you really do need an illustration to visualize it.
I'll find a few images to upload to help you see it.
-
if the earth was a flat piece of sod in space, you could not have volcanoes. Volcanoes require heat, and since the underside of the giant space-sod is never exposed to the sun it would be too cold to create lava. How can you have molten rock in freezing conditions? You cannot, therefore the earth is not flat.
How ridiculous.
Hell is below us.
The underworld is full of sulfur, coal, methane, fire, heat, lava, etc. It has nothing at all to do with the sun.
Even if you believe in a globe earth, the sun is not responsible for why the underworld is aflame. What a silly thought. If that were the case, there would be nothing alive on the surface! LOL
The earth is not floating in space.
The earth is between the great waters above the Firmanent and the waters of the Great Deep.
GO BACK AND READ GENESIS!
-
What was discovered in 1947?
No one knows for sure, it's quite a mystery.
What ever it was, it was important enough for 57 countries (many of whom are enemies!) to make a treaty to protect it in 1957. And protected it is - by military might. No one is allowed to go there without govt. aproval and people who try are routinely arrested.
-
So, if someone agrees with geocentrism, aren't they about 90% correct (assuming 'flat earth' is true)? In other words, cut them some slack! They're on your team!
Pax, it might seem that what you describe should be so, but it really is not. Rick DeLano, in particular, reserves an extremely high level of vitriol for flat earth.
The best objection to geocentrism being "a ball hanging in space" is the seasons, as I described in a previous post above.
Geocentrists who believe in a "ball hanging in space" have utterly no way to account for the seasons.
The earth cannot spin on its axis in geocentrism.
The earth cannot tilt on its axis in geocentrism.
Therefore, how do you explain the seasons under that idea of geocentrism? In short, you cannot - it is not possible.
I also find it to be a case of cognitive dissonance that the makers of The Principle film will accept the data obtained (microwave background radiation) by NASA which points to a stationary geocentric universe, so they accuse NASA of lying about the truth, but yet they implicitly trust that NASA went to the moon! It's just literally CRAZY to hold those two thoughts.
I even heard an interview with Robert Sungenis last year on the topic of Biblical flat earth, and when asked about the scripture passage where the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed Our Lord all the kingdoms of the earth Sungenis said, "Well, I don't think the Bible meant he showed Him ALL the kingdoms...I think it was just a metaphor...."
Oh, really?? So, now he is saying he does NOT take the Bible LITERALLY. Well, he takes it literally for SOME chapters, like Genesis's description of the Great Flood or Creation, but certainly NOT the part about the Lord being shown ALL THE KINGDOMS of the earth.
Again, cognitive dissonance - you CANNOT have it both ways. The Bible is LITERAL - even for the parts you do not understand, or don't seem possible to YOU. It is TRUTH - literally.
'Therefore, how do you explain the seasons under that idea of geocentrism? In short, you cannot - it is not possible.'
Of course it is, far simpler than the heliocentric seasons.
There is only one cosmic FACT of Scripture ever decreed as certain, that the sun moves around the earth.
Now the Bible also tells us what the sun and moon do:
And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven,
to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs,
and for seasons, and for days and years. (Gen. 1:14)
It occurs to me that the seasons could cause a problem for the theory that the earth is flat.
On a global earth;
The first astronomical understanding was the relationship between the sun and the earth. From earth we see the sun rise in the east, pass overhead and disappear westward under the horizon until it appears again in the east to continue its movement. This time period, divided into 24 hours, was classed as one astronomical day. This ‘day’ was also divided into two periods, one from sunrise to sunset, called daytime, and sunset to sunrise, called night-time.
The third time period was based on a different movement of the sun. From all points on earth, the daily motion of the sun shifts north and south and back again completing this movement over around 365 days. Careful measuring showed this path, if begun at the centre line around the earth (the Equator), goes 23.5 degrees north (called the Tropic of Cancer) and back down again to a point 23.5 degrees south of the Equator (called the Tropic of Capricorn) when it begins the cycle again. Like a precision instrument, the sun thus continues to deliver spring, summer, autumn and winter to both hemispheres in turn. This period, caused by the will of God, is called a year.
Now the seasons change each year. The southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere each have spring, summer and winter. when it is summer in the NH it is winter in the SH.
On a flat earth are there two hemispheres, and how are the seasons explained both together??
Firstly, one must understand that the sun, moon and stars are not the size and distance modern science pretends. The sun and moon are not worlds, but lights, relatively small, approximately the same size, about 32 miles across give or take, each. Their action over the earth at a much closer distance make certain areas dark, and other areas light. The sun and the moon do not share the same light as heliocentrics pretend. The moon does not reflect the sun's light, but illuminates with light of its own. It is certain that the sun's light is warm and golden and that it nourishes life. The moon's light is cold and silvery and putrifies. Place a thermometer in the sun and the temp goes up. Place that same thermometer in the full moon light and the temp goes down! These are just some of the truths about the sun and moon. There are several fe explanations that appear to work to explain seasons and times of day and for clarity, you should view some of them on youtube for best understanding, but the one I find most compelling is Enoch's version in the apocrypha. Without the visual, its tough to understand. Here is a scientific analysis of the sun, moon and stars not to be missed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LzJrVKmBk
-
On a flat earth are there two hemispheres, and how are the seasons explained both together??
Here are a few still images I pulled from an animation.
The first shows the sun's circuit over the flat earth plane for each time of year. Therefore, you can see that the sun is LITERALLY a greater distance AWAY from the north in winter - hence, it is colder and darker. And, you can see the sun is closer and more continuously overhead in the north in the summer - hence, it is warmer and lighter for longer time periods.
-
And this image shows the equliateral triangle shape of how the sun's rays hit the earth from its position above the flat earth plane, giving day over the area it is travelling above, while it is night on the other side of its circuit over the flat earth plane.
Please watch this video to see it in motion, which will help you to better understand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCjCWAFfTn4
-
This video shows the close and local nature of the sun and its rays through timelapse photography. The sun is travelling completely LEVEL at a consistent altitude above the flat earth plane. Therefore, when you see it approaching in the morning, the line it traces appears to be going upward, due to the perspective of your sight line. Then at the direct overhead point (noon) it appears to descend until it disappears from your line of sight (sunset).
This is the same affect as being at an airshow and watching the Blue Angels do a flyby: they appear to approach from the horizon at your line of sight, appear to climb high until they are directly overhead, then appear to descend as they speed away from you. However, they were flying completely level in a straight line overhead the entire flyby. You can also see this phenomenon traced out in the sky when an airplane lays down a chemtrail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDaiw-G1VGE
-
On a flat earth are there two hemispheres, and how are the seasons explained both together??
Here are a few still images I pulled from an animation.
The first shows the sun's circuit over the flat earth plane for each time of year. Therefore, you can see that the sun is LITERALLY a greater distance AWAY from the north in winter - hence, it is colder and darker. And, you can see the sun is closer and more continuously overhead in the north in the summer - hence, it is warmer and lighter for longer time periods.
Fair enough, that could explain it yes.
Are there two frozen 'poles' to a flat-earth? Here is why I ask:
I see references to geodesy by some posters. Is the flat-earth theory actually a bent flat-earth. I say this because the curve has been detected by geodesy on many occasions:
'‘Experimental evidence supporting this idea [that the earth is shaped like an orange] came in 1672 as a result of a French expedition to Guiana. The explorer [Jean Richer (1630-96)] found that a pendulum clock that kept good time in Paris lost 2½ minutes a day at Cayenne near the Equator. It is possible to determine whether or not the earth is an oblate spheroid by measuring the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude differences at two places along the meridian (the ellipse passing through the Poles) at different latitudes, which means at different distances from the Equator.’ --- Encyclopaedia Britannica, chapter: Earth, p.535.
King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition, to find the curve of the earth.. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere.
The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.
Then, in 1732 Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis followed by the prominent scientist Clairout. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. In 1735, financed by King Louis XV, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition - after the conditions nearly killed them - completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres long, they ‘found’ their bulge.
In 1909 the geophysicist Hayford is said to have presented the world with ‘the most accurate’ measurements, since adopted internationally for use in all data concerning the form of the earth.’ He gave an oblateness of 1/297 based on figures of an equatorial radius of 6,378,388 metres (3,963 miles) and a polar radius of 6,356,912 metres (3,950 miles), giving an oblateness of 21,474 metres (13.42 miles).
in 1959 another measurement for the earth was achieved, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) - yes a mere 25 feet - 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,
‘The earth is nearly spherical, having a diameter of 7,928 miles (12,756 km) at the equator but only 7,902 miles (12,714 km) from pole to pole. The slight broadening at the equator is the result of centrifugal forces from the earth’s spin, and originally set in when the planet was molten.’ --- 1999.--- Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen, The Science of Discworld, op. cit., 1999, p.123.
it seem none of our examples above found a flat earth. Is there a flat-earth theory for these results or were they all wrong in their calculations?
-
Is there a flat-earth theory for these results or were they all wrong in their calculations?
Yes, they were wrong.
There are experiments that show the non-curvature of the flat earth. The Michelson-Morley experiments and the Bedford Level Experiments are often cited.
Did you know that the math that NASA uses for all of its rocket launches assumes a flat earth? Why would they do that if the earth was a ball?
Things that make you go hmmm... :wink:
-
mw2016,
Somehow, someway, it seems that your flat earth model doesn't take into consideration the southern hemisphere. Do they have their own theory and model?
-
Are there two frozen 'poles' to a flat-earth?
Yes, on a FE map "north" is the center of the circle (the North Pole) and "south" is the outer perimeter of the circle - ice in a continuous circle around the edge.
-
mw2016,
Somehow, someway, it seems that your flat earth model doesn't take into consideration the southern hemisphere. Do they have their own theory and model?
South is the perimeter. North is the center, the Pole is what the stars and sun and moon rotate around. Here, I rotated the pic for you:
-
If you're going to post a link, make sure you have a grasp of the subject matter first.
My turn - let's see if Croixalist has a grasp of math!
According to the accepted heliocentric, ball-earth science promoted measurements of the earth, the earth has a circuмference (C) of 25,000 miles. It has a radius (R) of about 4,000 miles.
According to spherical trigonometry, one can calculate the expected drop of the horizon due to the earth's (supposed) curvature.
I used to live in Chicago. For the past year, a nice young man across the lake in Michigan has been taking pictures of the city. He has MANY of them. The problem is, the location across the lake is 59 miles away. According to the math, the city should not be visible at all from the shore in Michigan. But, there it is, all the same.
See photos here:
https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com/Looking-toward-Chicago-from-Mi/
Here's a photo of Nowicki's (now that I figured out how to post photos!) from across the lake.
And here's a video of Rob Skiba out on a boat filming the city continuously as he sails away from the shoreline to the other side, showing it to be always visible. Therefore, there is no curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tv4hyKx7Vs
-
mw2016,
Somehow, someway, it seems that your flat earth model doesn't take into consideration the southern hemisphere. Do they have their own theory and model?
South is the perimeter. North is the center, the Pole is what the stars and sun and moon rotate around. Here, I rotated the pic for you:
So if what you say is true, than that would mean that the sun and moon would have to accelerate as they move away from the north pole, and they would have to decelerate as they approach the north pole in order to maintain a 24hr day. Correct?
-
mw2016,
Somehow, someway, it seems that your flat earth model doesn't take into consideration the southern hemisphere. Do they have their own theory and model?
South is the perimeter. North is the center, the Pole is what the stars and sun and moon rotate around. Here, I rotated the pic for you:
So if what you say is true, than that would mean that the sun and moon would have to accelerate as they move away from the north pole, and they would have to decelerate as they approach the north pole in order to maintain a 24hr day. Correct?
Yes.
The moon travels at a different rate of speed as is already visible due to its moonrise and moonset times each day.
The sun travels at a different speed as evidenced by the fact that for instance, here in AZ on the winter solstice we have ten hours of daylight in a 24 hour day, but on the summer solstice we have 14 hours of daylight in a 24 hour day. Hence, the sun is inscribing a smaller circle in its circuit at the summer solstice.
This would create a spiral pattern if viewed from above, as demonstrated in the video, over the course of a year.
-
The earth isn't flat, it's HOLLOW!
Begin watching this at minute 50:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ws9oWALDH_4[/youtube]
(Earlier it's full of talk about the Garden of Eden being inside the earth.)
-
The earth isn't flat, it's HOLLOW!
This video proves it!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/XIn-v-G7Sy0[/youtube]
(Taken from a Coast-to-Coast AM radio program)
-
If you're going to post a link, make sure you have a grasp of the subject matter first.
My turn - let's see if Croixalist has a grasp of math!
According to the accepted heliocentric, ball-earth science promoted measurements of the earth, the earth has a circuмference (C) of 25,000 miles. It has a radius (R) of about 4,000 miles.
According to spherical trigonometry, one can calculate the expected drop of the horizon due to the earth's (supposed) curvature.
I used to live in Chicago. For the past year, a nice young man across the lake in Michigan has been taking pictures of the city. He has MANY of them. The problem is, the location across the lake is 59 miles away. According to the math, the city should not be visible at all from the shore in Michigan. But, there it is, all the same.
See photos here:
https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com/Looking-toward-Chicago-from-Mi/
Here's a photo of Nowicki's (now that I figured out how to post photos!) from across the lake.
And here's a video of Rob Skiba out on a boat filming the city continuously as he sails away from the shoreline to the other side, showing it to be always visible. Therefore, there is no curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tv4hyKx7Vs
This photo demonstrates nothing. At a range of 60 miles, the curvature of the earth would hide the bottom 40 feet of the skyline. Look at that tall building on the left. That's Sears Tower, with a height of ~1400 feet. Can you see the bottom 40 feet in that picture? I don't know, and neither do you, because the resolution isn't nearly good enough to allow it.
Therefore, this picture (and the others like it on that website) are at best inconclusive.
-
If you're going to post a link, make sure you have a grasp of the subject matter first.
My turn - let's see if Croixalist has a grasp of math!
According to the accepted heliocentric, ball-earth science promoted measurements of the earth, the earth has a circuмference (C) of 25,000 miles. It has a radius (R) of about 4,000 miles.
According to spherical trigonometry, one can calculate the expected drop of the horizon due to the earth's (supposed) curvature.
I used to live in Chicago. For the past year, a nice young man across the lake in Michigan has been taking pictures of the city. He has MANY of them. The problem is, the location across the lake is 59 miles away. According to the math, the city should not be visible at all from the shore in Michigan. But, there it is, all the same.
See photos here:
https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com/Looking-toward-Chicago-from-Mi/
Here's a photo of Nowicki's (now that I figured out how to post photos!) from across the lake.
And here's a video of Rob Skiba out on a boat filming the city continuously as he sails away from the shoreline to the other side, showing it to be always visible. Therefore, there is no curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tv4hyKx7Vs
This photo demonstrates nothing. At a range of 60 miles, the curvature of the earth would hide the bottom 40 feet of the skyline. Look at that tall building on the left. That's Sears Tower, with a height of ~1400 feet. Can you see the bottom 40 feet in that picture? I don't know, and neither do you, because the resolution isn't nearly good enough to allow it.
Therefore, this picture (and the others like it on that website) are at best inconclusive.
It appears that you do not understand the math, nor did you do the calculation for yourself.
Grand Mere State Beach, where Nowicki took the photo, is 59 miles away from the city.
The spherical trigonometry formula for downward curvature, if the earth were a ball, is:
miles x miles (i.e. miles squared) x 3.2 inches = inches of downward curvature
Therefore,
59 mi. x 59 mi. x 3.2 gives us:
11,139 inches
11,139 inches divided by 12 = 928 feet
This means that the skyline of the city should be curving downward away from the photographer on the beach by 928 feet, if the earth were a ball.
The Sears Tower is the tallest building in the city at 1,450 feet.
It is visible, in its ENTIRETY, in the photo.
If the earth was curving away by 928 feet, you would not be able to see the entire Sears Tower - much less the MUCH shorter buildings that surround it!
Therefore, as you can see, there is no curvature whatsoever between the two sides of Lake Michigan.
The earth is flat, the math proves what your eye plainly perceives.
-
The earth isn't flat, it's HOLLOW!
Well, you must believe at least some part of the earth is hollow, as that is where Hell is located, no?
-
The earth isn't flat, it's HOLLOW!
Well, you must believe at least some part of the earth is hollow, as that is where Hell is located, no?
I don't know about the hollowness of hell, but this is one hell of an audio.
Television should be Teslavision (minute 39):
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/LgZPOKmoN3k[/youtube]
-
The spherical trigonometry formula for downward curvature, if the earth were a ball, is:
miles x miles (i.e. miles squared) x 3.2 inches = inches of downward curvature
Therefore,
59 mi. x 59 mi. x 3.2 gives us:
11,139 inches
11,139 inches divided by 12 = 928 feet
This means that the skyline of the city should be curving downward away from the photographer on the beach by 928 feet, if the earth were a ball.
The Sears Tower is the tallest building in the city at 1,450 feet.
It is visible, in its ENTIRETY, in the photo.
If the earth was curving away by 928 feet, you would not be able to see the entire Sears Tower - much less the MUCH shorter buildings that surround it!
Therefore, as you can see, there is no curvature whatsoever between the two sides of Lake Michigan.
The earth is flat, the math proves what your eye plainly perceives.
May I ask where you derived the formula used above?
https://chizzlewit.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/working-with-the-curvaure-of-a-spherical-earth/
-
(http://i.imgur.com/H2H0rBc.jpg)
-
The spherical trigonometry formula for downward curvature, if the earth were a ball, is:
miles x miles (i.e. miles squared) x 3.2 inches = inches of downward curvature
Therefore,
59 mi. x 59 mi. x 3.2 gives us:
11,139 inches
11,139 inches divided by 12 = 928 feet
This means that the skyline of the city should be curving downward away from the photographer on the beach by 928 feet, if the earth were a ball.
The Sears Tower is the tallest building in the city at 1,450 feet.
It is visible, in its ENTIRETY, in the photo.
If the earth was curving away by 928 feet, you would not be able to see the entire Sears Tower - much less the MUCH shorter buildings that surround it!
Therefore, as you can see, there is no curvature whatsoever between the two sides of Lake Michigan.
The earth is flat, the math proves what your eye plainly perceives.
May I ask where you derived the formula used above?
https://chizzlewit.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/working-with-the-curvaure-of-a-spherical-earth/
The mathematics in your attached presentation are beyond my pay grade, but I was drawing a model on CAD, and I was able to determine that mw2016,s math is not accurate. I'm going to try to do more as I have time. The picture which is presented, even though of poor resolution, seems to coincide with my model thus far. Notice that that only the upper portions of the tallest buildings are visible.
-
The spherical trigonometry formula for downward curvature, if the earth were a ball, is:
miles x miles (i.e. miles squared) x 3.2 inches = inches of downward curvature
Therefore,
59 mi. x 59 mi. x 3.2 gives us:
11,139 inches
11,139 inches divided by 12 = 928 feet
This means that the skyline of the city should be curving downward away from the photographer on the beach by 928 feet, if the earth were a ball.
The Sears Tower is the tallest building in the city at 1,450 feet.
It is visible, in its ENTIRETY, in the photo.
If the earth was curving away by 928 feet, you would not be able to see the entire Sears Tower - much less the MUCH shorter buildings that surround it!
Therefore, as you can see, there is no curvature whatsoever between the two sides of Lake Michigan.
The earth is flat, the math proves what your eye plainly perceives.
May I ask where you derived the formula used above?
https://chizzlewit.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/working-with-the-curvaure-of-a-spherical-earth/
The full text was posted upthread, which I am not the author of. It came from a FE discussion forum.
P.S. The math in the link YOU provided is WAAYYYY above MY paygrade...LOL. It makes my math post look simple in comparison. There isn't even a summary equation provided for how to calculate unit of horizon drop over unit of distance!
-
The spherical trigonometry formula for downward curvature, if the earth were a ball, is:
miles x miles (i.e. miles squared) x 3.2 inches = inches of downward curvature
Therefore,
59 mi. x 59 mi. x 3.2 gives us:
11,139 inches
Miles times miles times inches yields square-mile-inches, which is nonsense.
11,139 inches divided by 12 = 928 feet
This means that the skyline of the city should be curving downward away from the photographer on the beach by 928 feet, if the earth were a ball.
The Sears Tower is the tallest building in the city at 1,450 feet.
It is visible, in its ENTIRETY, in the photo.
If the earth was curving away by 928 feet, you would not be able to see the entire Sears Tower - much less the MUCH shorter buildings that surround it!
Therefore, as you can see, there is no curvature whatsoever between the two sides of Lake Michigan.
The earth is flat, the math proves what your eye plainly perceives.
May I ask where you derived the formula used above?
https://chizzlewit.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/working-with-the-curvaure-of-a-spherical-earth/
The full text was posted upthread, which I am not the author of. It came from a FE discussion forum.
P.S. The math in the link YOU provided is WAAYYYY above MY paygrade...LOL. It makes my math post look simple in comparison. There isn't even a summary equation provided for how to calculate unit of horizon drop over unit of distance!
-
Post
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=270#p8)
If you're going to post a link, make sure you have a grasp of the subject matter first.
My turn - let's see if Croixalist has a grasp of math!
According to the accepted heliocentric, ball-earth science promoted measurements of the earth, the earth has a circuмference (C) of 25,000 miles. It has a radius (R) of about 4,000 miles.
According to spherical trigonometry, one can calculate the expected drop of the horizon due to the earth's (supposed) curvature.
I used to live in Chicago. For the past year, a nice young man across the lake in Michigan has been taking pictures of the city. He has MANY of them. The problem is, the location across the lake is 59 miles away. According to the math, the city should not be visible at all from the shore in Michigan. But, there it is, all the same.
See photos here:
https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com/Looking-toward-Chicago-from-Mi/
Here's a photo of Nowicki's (now that I figured out how to post photos!) from across the lake.
And here's a video of Rob Skiba out on a boat filming the city continuously as he sails away from the shoreline to the other side, showing it to be always visible. Therefore, there is no curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tv4hyKx7Vs
The above Youtube video (5tv4hyKx7Vs) is embedded here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/5tv4hyKx7Vs[/youtube]
Compare the 3 views as follows:
minute 7:19 -- 37 nautical miles (42.6 statute miles) to Chicago
minute 23:20 -- 8 miles to Chicago
minute 27:46 -- 25 nautical miles (29 stature miles) to Chicago
Do they look the same to you? The video authors try to explain why they look different, saying there is a haze over the water that obscures the lower part of the buildings at greater distances, while they mock the weather man for saying it's "a mirage."
One would expect that if they wanted to make it convincing, they would show images from across the lake that look like the image you see here, before starting the video.
-
It helps to open 3 separate Youtube windows with the video paused at 7:19, 23:20 and 27:46 respectively, so you can quickly switch back and forth between them.
See for yourself. At 37 and 25 nautical miles, the amount of the height of these buildings visible is greatly diminished, such that the bottom half of the Sears Tower is below the horizon, obviously due to the curvature of the earth.
Compare that to the 8 mile view and you can see how much more of the lower portion of the buildings is viewable above the water line of the horizon.
-
The passengers on the boat in the above video were about 8 feet off the water surface with their cameras. The distance to Chicago at minute 27:46 was 29 statute miles. The height of the Willis Tower (erstwhile Sears tower) is 1454 feet, and half of that is about 700 feet. Something like the lower half (500 to 800 feet) of the tower is obscured at 29 miles.
Use this website for an app that automatically calculates the obscured portion of an object due to the earth's curvature, given the distance to the object and the elevation of the viewpoint above water level:
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=29&h0=10&unit=imperial
For an eye height of 8 feet and target distance of 29 miles, the Target Hidden Height is 434 feet, which explains 62% of the missing image in the video. The rest (38%) could easily be attributable to blurriness of the images and an uncertainty regarding how the water level view of the tower should look (it is built on the ground, but what is the elevation of the foundation above water level?).
-
If the earth has no curvature, how come boats disappear over the horizon?
surely the only explanation is that this proves there is a curvature and that this occurs at a distance of only 10 miles.
-
If the earth has no curvature, how come boats disappear over the horizon?
surely the only explanation is that this proves there is a curvature and that this occurs at a distance of only 10 miles.
I recall being taught in history class that in the 15th century there was a popular thing to say, that since the hull of a sailing ship would appear to sink into the distant water, and then later as the ship sailed further from shore the sails and masts/rigging would then gradually sink apparently into the distant water, that the ships must be falling off the edge of the world, proving that the world is flat.
The fallacy in this line of reasoning is obvious, when you think about it. If the ships were falling off the edge of the earth how could it take so long for the masts/rigging and sails to fade down? If it takes one day for the hull to become apparently swallowed by the sea, why does it then take another three or four days before the top sails and rigging become invisible? (Keep in mind the rigging is 4 times as tall as the hull is.) It's simply because the progress of the ship's disappearance is a gradual process due to the gradual curvature of the earth, not because the ship is "falling off the edge of a flat earth."
In any event, it was not a common belief of educated and informed men that the earth was flat. That is an urban legend. Perhaps farmers with vast amounts of farmland and no serious study of science, land surveying or astronomy (among other studies) would get up in the morning and feed their chickens having such silly notions of the world. But there is no record of anyone with authority or responsibility in philosophy or higher education adhering to the myth of a flat earth.
Today we face a new anomaly, which adds fuel to the smoldering incredulity of the uneducated, namely the modern curious bent of educators (and Englishmen HAHAHA) to fall victim to the silly nonsense of biological evolution. If so many ostensibly educated men can stoop to such bizarre mental lows, perhaps there are other ideological errors afoot as well, such as NASA lying about the shape of the earth!!!
-
good point. How could the Sear's tower be beneath the horizon if the earth were flat. It should become smaller and smaller but it would never be beneath the horizon no matter how far out you went. Nor should it ever disappear from view, if the viewer has a strong enough telescope. However, the sears tower would disappear from any view because it goes beneath the horizon at some point.
-
good point. How could the [Sears] tower be beneath the horizon if the earth were flat. It should become smaller and smaller but it would never be beneath the horizon no matter how far out you went. Nor should it ever disappear from view, if the viewer has a strong enough telescope. However, the sears tower would disappear from any view because it goes beneath the horizon at some point.
If the earth were really flat, everyone in America would be able to see the Sears Tower (now called the Willis Tower), or for that matter, the Eiffel Tower or the Great Pyramid of Giza.
Why can't we see Mt. McKinley, AK (now called Denali) or Mt. Whitney, CA, from out of state? They're the tallest mountains in North America. From Mt. Whitney, one cannot even see Mt. St. Helens in nearby Oregon, nor can one see the Rocky Mountains northwest of Whitney. You can't even see the Pacific Ocean from there; why? because it's obscured by the curvature of the earth. But you can see Death Valley (barely), which is below sea level.
Standing on top of Mt. Whitney, the curvature of the earth is clearly visible. That's 14,500 feet above sea level, the highest point in the continuous 48 states. I know this because I have stood there, with surveying equipment, checking the horizon in all directions. Anyone with a good telescope can see many times as far from that mountaintop than he can from the foothills below it, but the view does not extend indefinitely as it would if the earth were flat. The discrepancy between the expected height of nearby peaks and their actual elevation is also measurable, based on their range distance. Tall mountains 5 miles away are only a few feet short of what they would be on a flat earth, but others further away at 30 miles distant, are measurably hundreds of feet lower than their elevation would make them appear.
Elevations above sea level are knowable quantities without which the California Aqueduct (for example) would not carry water to Los Angeles over 100's of miles.
.
-
In any event, it was not a common belief of educated and informed men that the earth was flat. That is an urban legend.
You have your urban legend utterly backwards, or upside down...LOL.
ALL cultures throughout history have ALWAYS held a flat earth belief. ALWAYS.
The ball-earth theory is only about 500 years old. It was a revival of the occultist Pythagoras's idea, which never gained traction in his lifetime.
Who would you rather believe? An occult magick practitioner of the mystery Babylonian religion or the Word of God??
-
The video authors try to explain why they look different, saying there is a haze over the water that obscures the lower part of the buildings at greater distances, while they mock the weather man for saying it's "a mirage."
I'm not sure what your point is.
A haze above the water (I lived in Chicago, it happens nearly every morning on the lake) is not the same thing as a mirage.
A fogbank, or haze that obstructs your view does so because you cannot see through it. You know what fog looks like, right?
A mirage is a reflection of an image.
I don't know how you are equating the two.
The weatherman said the builidings were not "really" visible - that they were just a mirage. But, Skiba's boat shows the buildings are visible the entire journey - hence, NOT a mirage.
-
perhaps there are other ideological errors afoot as well, such as NASA lying about the shape of the earth!!!
So, you're one of THOSE?? You really believe NASA tells the truth and that we went to the moon and to Jupiter just the other day??
:roll-laugh1:
Watch this!
How do I embed youtube?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK1xAxog2OM
-
In any event, it was not a common belief of educated and informed men that the earth was flat. That is an urban legend.
You have your urban legend utterly backwards, or upside down...LOL.
ALL cultures throughout history have ALWAYS held a flat earth belief. ALWAYS.
Nope. It's you who has it utterly backwards.
The ball-earth theory is only about 500 years old. It was a revival of the occultist Pythagoras's idea, which never gained traction in his lifetime.
Who would you rather believe? An occult magick practitioner of the mystery Babylonian religion or the Word of God??
You're wrong. Sorry. Do some research for a change.
As a Catholic (you are Catholic, no?) do you think this is some kind of subversive counterintelligence work?
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marianland.com%2Finfantofprague%2F64906.jpg&sp=2520fd0460e24dc7b9ed4c669ad9425b)
The Infant of Prague holds a globe in his hand which symbolizes the earth. Is that a big lie? Do you know how many miracles there have been under the auspices of the Infant of Prague? Are they all deceptions of God, then?
Or this:
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosarybay.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2FOur-Lady-Of-Grace.jpg&sp=fd6c5099728df3becf3cc4315bab49e5)
The most common depiction of Our Lady before the age of Marian apparitions, Our Lady of Grace, shows the Blessed Virgin standing on a snake and over a globe that symbolizes the earth. Another deliberate subversive deception for you?
-
In any event, it was not a common belief of educated and informed men that the earth was flat. That is an urban legend.
You have your urban legend utterly backwards, or upside down...LOL.
ALL cultures throughout history have ALWAYS held a flat earth belief. ALWAYS.
Nope. It's you who has it utterly backwards.
The ball-earth theory is only about 500 years old. It was a revival of the occultist Pythagoras's idea, which never gained traction in his lifetime.
Who would you rather believe? An occult magick practitioner of the mystery Babylonian religion or the Word of God??
You're wrong. Sorry. Do some research for a change.
As a Catholic (you are Catholic, no?) do you think this is some kind of subversive counterintelligence work?
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marianland.com%2Finfantofprague%2F64906.jpg&sp=2520fd0460e24dc7b9ed4c669ad9425b)
The Infant of Prague holds a globe in his hand which symbolizes the earth. Is that a big lie? Do you know how many miracles there have been under the auspices of the Infant of Prague? Are they all deceptions of God, then?
Or this:
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosarybay.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2FOur-Lady-Of-Grace.jpg&sp=fd6c5099728df3becf3cc4315bab49e5)
The most common depiction of Our Lady before the age of Marian apparitions, Our Lady of Grace, shows the Blessed Virgin standing on a snake and over a globe that symbolizes the earth. Another deliberate subversive deception for you?
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
I have no choice than to think so, because otherwise it means you are ignoring the FE model of God's CREATION.
The LAND is a flat plane.
The FIRMAMENT is a dome, spread out like a tent, as it says in the Bible.
The waters of the Great Deep are below us.
The Infant of Prague is holding God's ENTIRE CREATION in His hand. Our Lady is standing over all God's Creation - as she is the Queen of Heaven and Earth.
How do you, as a Catholic, disregard the Bible in this matter?
-
The ball-earth theory is only about 500 years old. It was a revival of the occultist Pythagoras's idea, which never gained traction in his lifetime.
Who would you rather believe? An occult magick practitioner of the mystery Babylonian religion or the Word of God??
You're wrong. Sorry. Do some research for a change.
BTW, it is not I who needs to do the research, if you are unaware of the occult practices of the mystery religion and its followers: Pythagoras, Coperincus, Kepler, etc.
This is fairly well docuмented. Perhaps you'd like some reading material??
-
The video authors try to explain why they look different, saying there is a haze over the water that obscures the lower part of the buildings at greater distances, while they mock the weather man for saying it's "a mirage."
I'm not sure what your point is.
At the risk of being obvious, let me be obvious.
The inept and compulsive video authors (who fumbled the drone footage so we can't see that, which would have been interesting) are out to prove the weatherman wrong by proving that what you see from across the lake is not a mirage. Where is their objective analysis? Where do they compare side by side images obtained from different distances? They don't. They leave that up to you and me, so I have offered you how to do that. Did you do it?
Most likely you did not.
A haze above the water (I lived in Chicago, it happens nearly every morning on the lake) is not the same thing as a mirage.
The weatherman did not say the fog bank is a mirage. He said that the image of Chicago that you see above the fog bank is a distorted image which is not due to light traveling straight across the lake. He correctly presented the concept of a mirage as the result of bending light, which is exactly what a mirage is. What he failed to explain is that the curving aspect of that light is not simple to measure as it depends on various factors such as temperature, humidity, air pressure, wind, refraction, etc. But the MAJORITY of the image of Chicago that you see (only the tops of the tallest buildings) is due to the curvature of the earth.
A fogbank, or haze that obstructs your view does so because you cannot see through it. You know what fog looks like, right?
A mirage is a reflection of an image.
No, a mirage is an image that appears to be something that it is not. Some mirages are entirely deceptive, appearing to show something that is not there at all, and other mirages distort what is there and make it look like it's something else. This case is among the latter, FYI.
I don't know how you are equating the two.
The weatherman said the builidings were not "really" visible - that they were just a mirage. But, Skiba's boat shows the buildings are visible the entire journey - hence, NOT a mirage.
The weatherman made a mistake implying that if not for the distortion (mirage) you would not be able to see the buildings of Chicago. The distortion has an effect on the image but does not explain the whole thing. The curvature of the earth in only 40 miles is not sufficient to obscure buildings over 1,000 feet tall.
See the website I linked above.
From the far side of the lake, at about 40 statute miles, you do NOT see the same Chicago skyline that you can see from 8 miles. You can only see the top part of the tallest buildings, and the fog bank is not tall enough to obscure even half of the rest. That much is obvious.
If you don't comprehend that, then I can't help you.
But it seems you don't want any help. Correct?
.
-
No, a mirage is an image that appears to be something that it is not. Some mirages are entirely deceptive, appearing to show something that is not there at all, and other mirages distort what is there and make it look like it's something else. This case is among the latter, FYI.
From the far side of the lake, at about 40 statute miles, you do NOT see the same Chicago skyline that you can see from 8 miles. You can only see the top part of the tallest buildings, and the fog bank is not tall enough to obscure even half of the rest. That much is obvious.
If you don't comprehend that, then I can't help you.
But it seems you don't want any help. Correct?
Again, I ask if you are being purposely obtuse.
This photo shows the ENTIRETY of the Chicago city skyline - even the SHORT buildings.
This photo is NOT a "deceptive mirage" nor a "distortion."
Under your ball-earth belief, even if you want to argue that the TALLEST buildings would not be completely out of view due to the curvature of the earth, you MUST agree that the SHORTEST buildings would - by virtue of the MATH - not be visible!
Therefore, since ALL the buildings are visible there is NO CURVATURE TO BE FOUND WHATSOEVER.
I would like to point out that you are sidestepping the very important BIBLICAL questions I have posed to you, as well as the occultic practices of your favored so-called "scientists" - both from the PAST and present at NASA.
I am waiting for your answer.
-
A good map with Bible passages referenced.
-
The earth was formed from the Waters of the Great Deep. I do recall reading at some point along the way, that the earth's land may have been "materialized" from the waters instantaneously, i.e. the earth itself, the land, was a solid that was "dissolved" in solution in the waters. This theory goes a long way to explaing some sedimentary formations we see, which we all know were NOT formed over millions of years.
-
A circle is NOT a globe.
-
You can't be serious.
No, a mirage is an image that appears to be something that it is not. Some mirages are entirely deceptive, appearing to show something that is not there at all, and other mirages distort what is there and make it look like it's something else. This case is among the latter, FYI.
From the far side of the lake, at about 40 statute miles, you do NOT see the same Chicago skyline that you can see from 8 miles. You can only see the top part of the tallest buildings, and the fog bank is not tall enough to obscure even half of the rest. That much is obvious.
If you don't comprehend that, then I can't help you.
But it seems you don't want any help. Correct?
Again, I ask if you are being purposely obtuse.
This photo shows the ENTIRETY of the Chicago city skyline - even the SHORT buildings.
No, the photo below only shows the top half of the Willis tower, and is missing the lower several hundred feet of all the other buildings seen.
The Willis Tower has 3 large stepped segments in the upper half. All you can see in your picture below is two large stepped segments, so the lower and largest one is not visible at all. Also, there is the top of a tall building near the left border that is barely visible, and all the other shorter buildings between it and the Willis Tower are out of sight altogether.
This photo is NOT a "deceptive mirage" nor a "distortion."
Under your ball-earth belief, even if you want to argue that the TALLEST buildings would not be completely out of view due to the curvature of the earth, you MUST agree that the SHORTEST buildings would - by virtue of the MATH - not be visible!
Therefore, since ALL the buildings are visible there is NO CURVATURE TO BE FOUND WHATSOEVER.
As I tried to explain to you above, many of the shorter buildings are not visible at all in this picture below.
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9426)
I would like to point out that you are sidestepping the very important BIBLICAL questions I have posed to you, as well as the occultic practices of your favored so-called "scientists" - both from the PAST and present at NASA.
I am waiting for your answer.
-
The ancient Hebrews AND the ancient Egyptians ALL thought the earth was a flat disc on a foundation.
-
Egypt
-
.
-
.
-
I am mildly amused that you dismiss Pythagoras as an occultist, then appeal to the ancient Egyptians as a source.
-
Are you going postal or something? 4 posts in 9 minutes, mw2016?
Here is a photo of Chicago from just offshore in Lake Michigan:
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F2%2F2b%2FChicago_Skyline_from_Lake_Michigan.jpg&sp=9bc5f15179e126e390760e2c3dc1bd5f)
You can clearly see the tops of 7 shorter buildings immediately to the left of the Willis Tower.
(A shorter light colored building in the foreground covers the bottom half of the black Willis Tower in this view.)
How many can you see in your photo?
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9426)
Answer: only two or three -- because the curvature of the earth obscures the rest of them!
(And that shorter light colored building is entirely below the horizon in this photo!)
There is a factor of perspective to consider as well. The Willis Tower is definitely the tallest building in either picture, but it doesn't LOOK tallest in the first photo, since the camera is closer to the buildings in the foreground, making them appear taller. If the camera was 8 miles out into Lake Michigan (as it is in the video linked above) then you'd see a more objective comparison of relative heights from one building to another.
.
-
I'm attempting to embed a video...
This is the best series I have ever seen that explains the reasons why the Bible uses the words it does to describe the earth as being flat.
Don't let the title deceive you, it is a video that proves the origins of the words used in the Bible that show the earth to be flat.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/watch?v=MS78uT8j3ok&list=PL5F34CF577900491D&index=1[/youtube]
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h5K5PrEMzU&list=PL5F34CF577900491D&index=4
-
I am mildly amused that you dismiss Pythagoras as an occultist, then appeal to the ancient Egyptians as a source.
Obviously, it is to be assumed that any Catholic knows the Egyptians practiced the Babylonian mystery religion.
The fact that they also knew the earth to be flat makes them the same as every other culture.
I am referring to the fact that Neil has based his belief system upon a man who had his own cult, his own religion, his own disciples, due to his practice of the Dark Arts. And Pythagoras tried to upend his society with a great deception and he failed.
It didn't catch on.
Not until Copernicus completed his subversion of the Church.
-
Are you going postal or something? 4 posts in 9 minutes, mw2016?
Here is a photo of Chicago from just offshore in Lake Michigan:
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F2%2F2b%2FChicago_Skyline_from_Lake_Michigan.jpg&sp=9bc5f15179e126e390760e2c3dc1bd5f)
You can clearly see the tops of 7 shorter buildings immediately to the left of the Willis Tower.
(A shorter light colored building in the foreground covers the bottom half of the black Willis Tower in this view.)
How many can you see in your photo?
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9426)
Answer: only two or three -- because the curvature of the earth obscures the rest of them!
(And that shorter light colored building is entirely below the horizon in this photo!)
There is a factor of perspective to consider as well. The Willis Tower is definitely the tallest building in either picture, but it doesn't LOOK tallest in the first photo, since the camera is closer to the buildings in the foreground, making them appear taller. If the camera was 8 miles out into Lake Michigan (as it is in the video linked above) then you'd see a more objective comparison of relative heights from one building to another.
.
Your first photo shows the boat taking the picture to be less than a mile offshore, I'd estimate.
The Nowicki photo is 59 MILES away, and I can count at least FIVE buildings next to the Sears Tower.
If the earth were a ball, as you believe, there would only be the stubs of the tallest three buildings in the skyline visible, according TO MATH.
But, that is clearly NOT the reality.
You know, there are MANY examples such as this - Chicago is an easy one, but there are MANY - and ones over greater distances than 59 miles. There are many over land, and many over water, showing certain geographical features (cities, mountains, etc.) that should not be visible AT ALL if the earth is a ball.
-
[youtube]https://youtube.com/embed/5tv4hyKx7Vs?t=1394[/youtube]
Set to minute 23:14 (and keep it there for this post's comments) to see the building a few miles to the left of the Willis Tower.
You can see how there are numerous shorter buildings in the interim, here obscured by the fog layer, but still you can see their shadowy outline. All of those buildings are missing entirely in your photo where you say they are all visible. (But they are not visible in fact, because they are obscured by the curvature of the earth in your picture, below, seen as a horizon line or the surface of Lake Michigan. Your fog is only 1/16" tall, which is insignificant compared to 5/8".)
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9426)
That building on the left edge of the photo appears only 1/8" tall in your photo, but in the 23:14 frame in the video above, it's about 5/8" tall. So the bottom 1/2" is missing in your photo. It's missing because it is hidden by the lake's curving surface: curving because of the earth's curvature.
See the long top portion of the Willis Tower in your photo? Compare that to the same top portion in the 23:14 video frame above it. The top section appears shorter in the top photo, but it isn't shorter. It's the same length in both photos, because it's the same tower and the same direction. The simple explanation is that in your photo, the bottom 1/2" of all the buildings is missing.
Hold a sheet of paper horizontally covering 1/2" above the water line at minute 23:14 in the video above, and what you're left with is the same image that you see in your photo from further away over the lake. That 1/2" is what the curvature of the earth is obscuring.
.
-
Rob Skiba has many good illustrations, both ancient and modern, here:
http://robschannel.com/still-think-the-bible-isnt-a-flat-earth-book
-
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm
Strong's Concordance
chug: vault, horizon
Original Word: ????
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: chug
Phonetic Spelling: (khoog)
Short Definition: circle
Job 22:14
HEB: ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????????
NAS: And He walks on the vault of heaven.'
KJV: not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.
INT: cannot see the vault of heaven walks
Proverbs 8:27
HEB: ?????? ?????????? ?????? ???? ???????
NAS: When He inscribed a circle on the face
KJV: I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face
INT: he inscribed A circle on the face
Isaiah 40:22
HEB: ?????????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????????????
NAS: above the circle of the earth,
KJV: [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
INT: sits above the circle of the earth inhabitants
-
This is one of my favorites, the Flammiron illustration, from 1888. It was used in the book by Camille Flammiron, "L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire ("The Atmosphere: Popular Meteorology").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_engraving
Previous to the knowledge that the earth was moving in space, and that space is everywhere, theologians had installed the Trinity in the empyrean, the glorified body of Jesus, that of the Virgin Mary, the angelic hierarchy, the saints, and all the heavenly host.... A naïve missionary of the Middle Ages even tells us that, in one of his voyages in search of the terrestrial paradise, he reached the horizon where the earth and the heavens met, and that he discovered a certain point where they were not joined together, and where, by stooping his shoulders, he passed under the roof of the heavens...
-
Ancient Incas from NatGeo
-
If you're content with the fanciful cartoons of uninformed dreamers, mw2016, then I guess you can go ahead and dream on, yourself.
I have tried to point out the failings of your silly daydream using photographs of Chicago and the Willis Tower (you erroneously insist on calling the "Sears" tower), but you're not interested. So world surveying, videos from the Space Shuttle, physics lessons or meteorological units of information are not going to matter to you, will they. You've already made up your mind and you're happy (I guess) in your ignorance.
Your loss.
-
ok, go get your tremendously powerful telescope and tell me when you can see England from the east coast of the US. You will never be able to do it, no matter if you had the strongest possible lens. Why? Because the line of sight will be a tangent to the earth. This tangent will be above the shore of England and so you will not be able to see it. Why? Because that tangent is the tangent to the earth, which is curved. If the earth were not curved, I can assure you that you could see England(barring fog and other obstacles).
The Sun is 8 million miles away and yet you can see it. Why? Because the Sun and the earth do not both sit on a curved surface as England and Rhode Island, for example,do.
-
If you're content with the fanciful cartoons of uninformed dreamers, mw2016, then I guess you can go ahead and dream on, yourself.
I have tried to point out the failings of your silly daydream using photographs of Chicago and the Willis Tower (you erroneously insist on calling the "Sears" tower), but you're not interested. So world surveying, videos from the Space Shuttle, physics lessons or meteorological units of information are not going to matter to you, will they. You've already made up your mind and you're happy (I guess) in your ignorance.
Your loss.
So, you're bowing out of a flat earth argument because we don't agree on what we see in a photo of Chicago? Wow, that was easy!
I wonder why you studiously ignore the questions that relate to God's Word on this matter? I cannot imagine how you reconcile the Bible's contradictions with so-called "modern science" in your mind, and somehow come down on the side of "science" and not God - just bizarre.
-
ok, go get your tremendously powerful telescope and tell me when you can see England from the east coast of the US. You will never be able to do it, no matter if you had the strongest possible lens. Why? Because the line of sight will be a tangent to the earth. This tangent will be above the shore of England and so you will not be able to see it. Why? Because that tangent is the tangent to the earth, which is curved. If the earth were not curved, I can assure you that you could see England(barring fog and other obstacles).
The Sun is 8 million miles away and yet you can see it. Why? Because the Sun and the earth do not both sit on a curved surface as England and Rhode Island, for example,do.
You do know that modern science hold that the sun is 93 MILLION miles away, not EIGHT - right?
The flat earth model hold that the sun is close - less than 3,000 miles overhead.
Yes, indeed you could see across the sea if you had a high enough vantage point, a clear day, and a very powerful telescope in the flat earth model.
The longest reported distances sighted at sea are around 250 miles away.
-
ok, go get your tremendously powerful telescope and tell me when you can see England from the east coast of the US. You will never be able to do it, no matter if you had the strongest possible lens. Why? Because the line of sight will be a tangent to the earth. This tangent will be above the shore of England and so you will not be able to see it. Why? Because that tangent is the tangent to the earth, which is curved. If the earth were not curved, I can assure you that you could see England(barring fog and other obstacles).
The Sun is 8 million miles away and yet you can see it. Why? Because the Sun and the earth do not both sit on a curved surface as England and Rhode Island, for example,do.
You do know that modern science hold that the sun is 93 MILLION miles away, not EIGHT - right?
The flat earth model hold that the sun is close - less than 3,000 miles overhead.
Yes, indeed you could see across the sea if you had a high enough vantage point, a clear day, and a very powerful telescope in the flat earth model.
The longest reported distances sighted at sea are around 250 miles away.
yes, on the flat earth model. but in the real world, the one that enjoys a reality outside your head, you wouldn't be able to see England. Tell me why they need relays for radio and TV signals if there is flat earth. If the sun were 3000 miles away you would be vaporized. the ancient people who developed these flat earth models didn't know as much as we do about the physical world. They had neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for scientific thought.
-
yes, on the flat earth model. but in the real world, the one that enjoys a reality outside your head, you wouldn't be able to see England. Tell me why they need relays for radio and TV signals if there is flat earth. If the sun were 3000 miles away you would be vaporized. the ancient people who developed these flat earth models didn't know as much as we do about the physical world. They had neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for scientific thought.
It seems the ancients had better knowledge about the earth than the present so-called "scientists" that you hold up as gods of knowledge.
At the least they understood that the earth was flat and the sun moved about it, not the exact opposite which your so-called geniuses believe.
What makes you think that a light ray or a sound wave whould travel infinitely? They do not.
-
The Sun is 8 million miles away and yet you can see it. Why? Because the Sun and the earth do not both sit on a curved surface as England and Rhode Island, for example, do.
This one is for you:
-
ok, go get your tremendously powerful telescope and tell me when you can see England from the east coast of the US. You will never be able to do it, no matter if you had the strongest possible lens. Why? Because the line of sight will be a tangent to the earth. This tangent will be above the shore of England and so you will not be able to see it. Why? Because that tangent is the tangent to the earth, which is curved. If the earth were not curved, I can assure you that you could see England(barring fog and other obstacles).
The Sun is 8 million miles away and yet you can see it. Why? Because the Sun and the earth do not both sit on a curved surface as England and Rhode Island, for example,do.
You do know that modern science hold that the sun is 93 MILLION miles away, not EIGHT - right?
The flat earth model hold that the sun is close - less than 3,000 miles overhead.
Yes, indeed you could see across the sea if you had a high enough vantage point, a clear day, and a very powerful telescope in the flat earth model.
The longest reported distances sighted at sea are around 250 miles away.
yes, on the flat earth model. but in the real world, the one that enjoys a reality outside your head, you wouldn't be able to see England. Tell me why they need relays for radio and TV signals if there is flat earth. If the sun were 3000 miles away you would be vaporized. the ancient people who developed these flat earth models didn't know as much as we do about the physical world. They had neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for scientific thought.
What you are alluding to is indoctrination by the Illuminati. The Illuminati are pushing the Globe theory.
-
The Illuminati are pushing the Globe theory.
Indeed. It is a Great Deception.
It is embarrassing how many Catholics support the deception.
-
Here is John Jasper, a slave, but brilliant and humble. What a beautiful soul!
https://uponthecircle.com/2016/03/31/the-sun-do-move-but-jasper-dont-budge/
“And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10:13 KJV)
John Jasper (1812-1901) was undoubtedly Virginia’s most famous black preacher. After 25 years as a slave, Jasper was converted and followed the call of the Lord to preach. In 1867 he started the Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church with only nine members. At the time of his death in 1901 the church had over 2000 members.
In 1882 Jasper preached his most famous sermon “De Sun Do Move and De Earth Am Flat”.
It is said that the sermon was preached as a result of a question Jasper received from a member of the church regarding Joshua 10:12-13. Jasper reportedly told the member that he’d preach on the topic the following Sunday. That was the first of over 250 times the sermon had been preached. Jasper toured the US preaching the sermon to rich and poor, white and black, and even to the Virginia House of Representatives. In the sermon, which is said to have lasted approximately 90 minutes in length, Jasper tells of his inability to read and the roommate and fellow slave that God put I his path to change all that . He also tells of his prayer to the Lord asking for wisdom in understanding the Bible.
The sermon has been transcribed several times on line. Unfortunately however; the language used is supposed “authentic” and is said to reflect Jasper’s poor use of grammar. The transcriptions are littered with misspellings and phonetically spelled words. I feel that it does a tremendous disservice to Jasper and his sermon. I’ve included below a transcript of the sermon minus all the “authentic” errors. While the sermon drew praise – it also drew much ridicule from his fellow pastors. I believe that many thought the sermon nothing more than humor. Certainly science tells us the the matter was settled with regards to the sun’s supposed movement and position by Copernicus in 1543. According to Jasper and Joshua…that’s not the case.
Jasper’s demonstration of plain and simple faith should be an inspiration to us all. Never taking God’s word for granted -just simply taking God at his word.
Hebrews 11:3 tells us ” Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
So then what is faith ? Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
And where does this faith come from? Romans 10:17 (KJV) 17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Do you really believe what the Bible says? .. I mean… Do you [Really] believe what the Bible says?
JOHN JASPER “DE SUN DO MOVE” – Richmond 1882
Allow me to say that when I was a young man and a slave, I knew nothing worth talking about concerning books. They were sealed mysteries to me, but I tell you I longed to break the seal. I thirsted for the bread of learning. When I saw books, I ached to get in to them, for I knew that they had the stuff for me and I wanted to taste their contents, but most of the time, they were barred against me.
By the mercy of the Lord a thing happened. I got a room fellow – he was a slave too and he had learned to read. In the dead of the night he’d give me lessons out of the New York Spelling Book. It was hard puling, I tell you, harder on him, for he knew just a little and it made him sweat to try to beat something into my hard head. It was worse with me. Up the hill every step, but when I got the light of the lesson into my noodle, I fairly shouted, but I knew I was not a scholar. The consequence was I crept along mighty to just getting a crumb here and there until I could read the Bible by skipping long words, tolerable well. That was the start of my education – that is what little I got. I make mention of that young man. The years have fled away since then, but I haven’t forgot my teacher and never shall. I thank my Lord for him and I carry his memory in my heart.
About seven months after my getting to read, God converted my soul and I reckon about the first and main thing that I begged the Lord to give me was the power to understand His Word. I’m not bragging and I hate self praise, but I’m about to speak the thankful word. I believe in my heart that my prayer to understand the Scripture was heard. Since that time I haven’t cared about nothing except to study and preach the Word of God..
Not, my brethren, that I’m the fool to think that I know it all. Oh, my Father no!, Far from it. i don’t hardly understand myself, nor half of the things around me and there are millions of things in the Bible too deep for Jasper and some of them are too deep for everybody. I don’t carry the keys to the Lord’s closet and He hasn’t told me to peak in and if I did, I’m so stupid, I wojldn’t know if when it saw it. No, friends, I know my place at the feet of my Master and there I stay.
But I can read the Bible and get the things that lay on the top of the soil out of the Bible, I know nothing extra about the sun. I see its courses as he rides up there so grand and mighty in the sky, but there are heaps about that flaming orb that are too much for me. I know that the sun shines powerfully and pours its light in floods and yet, that is nothing compared with the light that flashes in my mind from the pages of God’s book. But you know all that. I know that the sun burns – Oh, how it did burn on those July days. I tell you he cooked the skin on my back many a day when I was hoeing in the cornfield. But you know all that and yet, that is nothing to the divine fire that burns in the souls of God’s children. Can you feel it brethren?
About the course of the sun, I’ve got that. I have done ranged through the whole blessed book and scoured down every last thing the Bible says about the movements of the sun. I’ve got all that pat and safe. And let me sat that if I don’t give it to you straight, if I get one word crooked wrong, you just holler out “Hold on, Jasper, you ain’t got that straight.” and I’ll beg pardon. If I don’t tell the truth, march right up on these steps here and tell me I’m a liar and I’ll take it. I fear I do lie sometimes. I’m so sinful I find it hard to do right, but my God doesn’t lie and He hasn’t put any lies in the Book of eternal truth and if I give you what the Bible says, then I’m bound to tell the truth.
I’ve got to take you all this afternoon on an excursion to a great battlefield. Most folks like to see fights, some are mighty fond of getting into fights and some are mighty quick to run down the back alley when there is a battle going on for the right. This time I’ll escort you to a scene where you shall witness a curious battle. It took place soon after Israel got into the Promised Land. You remember that the people of Gideon made friends with God's people when they first entered into Cannan and they were most smart to do it. But just the same, it got them into an awful fuss. The cities round about there flared up at that, and they all joined forces and said they were going to mop the Gideon people off of the ground and they bunched their armies together and went up for to do it. When they came up so bold and brave the Gideonites were scared out of their senses and they sent word to Joshua that they were in trouble and he must have ran up there and got them out. Joshua had the heart of a lion and he was up there directly. They had an awful fight, sharp and bitter but you might know that General Joshua was not up there to get whipped. He prayed and he fought, and the hours got away too fast for him, and so he asked the Lord to issue a special order that the sun hold up for a while and that the moon would furnish plenty of moonshine down on the lower part of the fighting grounds. As a fact, Joshua was so drunk with the battle, so thirsty for the blood of the enemies of the Lord, and so wild with the victory that he told the sun to stand still until he could finish his job. What did the sun do? Did he glare down in fiery wrath and say “Why are you talking about my stopping, Joshua. I have never started (moving) yet. Been here all the time, and it would smash everything up if I was to start?”
No, he didn’t say that, But what does the Bible say? Thats what I asked to know. It says that it was at the voice of Joshua that it stopped. I didn’t say it stopped, (that’s) not for Jasper to say but the Bible, the book of God, says so. But I say this – nothing can stop until it has first started. So I know what I’m talking about. The sun was traveling along there through the sky when the order came he hitched his red ponies and made quite a call on the land of Gideon. He perched up there in the skies just as friendly as a neighbor when he comes to borrow something and he stood up there and he looked like he enjoyed the way Joshua waxed those wicked armies. And the moon – she waited down in the low grounds there, and poured out her light and looked just as calm and happy as if she was waiting for her escort. They never budged, neither of them, as long as the Lord’s army needed the light to carry on the battle.
I didn’t read when it was that Joshua hitched up and drove on – but I suppose it was when the Lord told him to go. Anybody knows that that the sun didn’t stay there all the time. It stopped for business and went on when it got through. This is about all that I have to do with this particular case. I’ve shown you that part of the Lord’s word teaches you that the sun stopped – which shows that he was moving before that and that he went on afterwards. I told you that I would prove this and i have and I defy anybody to say that my point hasn’t been made.
I told you in the first part of this discourse that the Lord God is a man of war. I expect by now that you’ve been to see it is so. Don’t you admit it? When the Lord came to see Joshua in the day of his fears and warfare and actually made the sun stop stone still in the heavens, so the fight could rage on until all the foes were slain, you're obliged to understand that the God of peace is also the man of war. He can use both peace and war to help the righteous, and to scatter the host of the aliens. A man talked to me last week about the laws of nature and he said they can’t possibly be upset and I had to laugh right in his face. As if the laws of everything were greater than my God who is the lawgiver for everything. My Lord is great. He rules in the heavens, in the earth, and down under the ground. He is great and greatly to be praised. Let all the people bow down and worship before Him.
But let us get along, for there is quite a lot more coming on. Let us take next the case of Hezekiah. He was one of the kings of Judaea, mighty sorry, but what a mess those kings ere, for the most part. I am inclined to think that Hezekiah was one of the highest in the general average, and he was no mighty man himself. Well, Hezekiah got sick. I dare say that a king, when he gets his crown off, and when he is prostrated with mortal sickness, he gets about as common looking and grunts and rolls and is about as scary as the rest of us poor mortals. We know that Hezekiah was in a low state of mind, full of tears, and in a terrible trouble. The fact is, the Lord stripped him of all his glory and landed him in the dust. He told him that his hour had come and that he had better square up his affairs, for death was at the door. Then it was that the king fell low before God. He turned his face to the wall, he cried, he moaned, (and) he begged the Lord not to take him out of the world yet. Oh, how good is our God. The cry of the kind moved his heart and he told him he was going to give him another show. Its not only the kings that the Lord hears. The cry of the prisoners, the wail of the the bondsman, the tears of the dying robber, the prayers of the backslider, the sobs of the woman that was a sinner, mighty apt to touch the heart of the Lord. It looks like its hard for the sinner to get so far off or so far down in the pit that his cry can’t reach the ear of the merciful Savior.
But the Lord did even better for Hezekiah. He told him He was going to give him a sign by which he’d know that what He said was coming to pass. I’m not acquainted with ‘them sun dials that the Lord told Hezekiah about, but anybody thats got a grain of sense knows that they were the clocks of the old times and they marked the travels of the sun by those dials. When therefore God told the king that he would make the shadow go backward, it must have been just like putting the hands of the clock back, but Isaiah expressly said that the sun returned ten degrees. There you are! Isn’t that the movement of the sun? Bless my soul. Hezekiah’s case beat Joshua. Joshua stopped the sun, but here the Lord makes the sun walk back ten degrees and get they say that the sun stands stone still and never moves a peg. It looks to me that he moves around mighty brisk and is ready to go anyway that the Lord orders hims to go. I wonder if any of those philosophers are around here this afternoon? I’d like to a square look at one of them and ask him to explain this matter. He can’t do it, my brethren. He knows a heap about books, maps, figures and long distances, but i defy him to take up Hezekiah’s case and explain it off. He can’t do it. The Word of the Lord is my defense and bulwark and I fear not what men can say nor do; my God gives me the victory.
Allow me, my friends to put myself square about this movement of the sun. Its no business of mine whether the sun moves or stands still or whether it stops or goes back or rises or sets. All that is out of my hands entirely and I’ve got nothing to say. I’ve got no “The-o-ry” on the subject. All I ask is that we will take what the Lord says about it and let His will be done about everything. What that will is, I can’t know, except He whisper into my soul or write it in a book. Here’s the Book! – This is enough for me and with it to pilot me, I can’t get far astray.
But I’m not done with you yet. As the song says, theres more to follow. I invite you to the first verse in the seventh chapter of the book of Revelation. What does John, under the power of the spirit say? He says he saw four angels standing on the four corners of the the earth holding the four winds of the earth and so forth. Allow me to ask if the earth is round, where does it keep its corners? A flat square thing has corners, but tell me where is the corner of an apple, or a marble, or a cannon ball, or a silver dollar? If there is any one of those philosophers who have been talking so many cracks at my old head, he is cordially invited to step forward and square up this vexing business. I’m here to tell you that you can’t square a circle, but it looks like these great scholars have learned how to circle the square. If they can do it, let them step forward in front and do the trick. But my brethren, in my poor judgment, they can’t do it. Its not in them to do it. They are on the wrong side of the Bible – thats on the outside of the Bible, and this is where the trouble comes in with them. They’ve done got out of the breastworks of the truth, and as long as they stay there, the light of the Lord will not shine on their path. I don’t care so much about the sun, though its mighty convenient to have it, but my trust is in the the Word of the Lord. As long as my feet are on the solid rock, no man can move me. I’m getting my orders from the God of my salvation.
The other day a man with a hi collar and side whiskers came to my house. He was one nice Northern gentlemen – wouldn’t think a heap of us colored people in the South. They are lovely folks and I honor them very much. He seemed from the start kind of strict and cross with me and after a while, he broke out furious and fretted and he said, “Allow me Mr. Jasper to give you some plain advice, This nonsense about the sun moving wherever you’re getting it, is disgracing your race all over the country and as a friend of your people, I come to say its got to stop.” Ha! Ha! Ha! Mr. Sam Hargrove never hardly smashed me that way. It was equal to one of them old overseers way back yonder. I told him that if he’d show me I was wrong, I’d give it all up.
My, my! Ha! Ha! Ha!. He sailed in on me and such a storm about science, new discoveries and the Lord one knows what all, I never heard before and them he told me my race is urging me and poor old Jasper must shut up his fool mouth.
When he got through - it looked like he never would – I told him John jasper isn’t set up to be no scholar and doesn’t know the philosophies, and isn’t trying to hurt his people, but is working day and night to lift them up, but his foot is on the rock of eternal truth. There he stands and there he is going to stand till Gabriel sounds the judgment note. So I said to the gentlemen that scolded me that I heard him make his remarks, but I haven’t heard where he gets his Scripture from and that's between him and the Word of the Lord. I take my stand by the Word of the God every time. Jasper isn’t mad; he isn’t going to fight nobody; he hasn’t been appointed janitor to run the sun. He is nothing but the servant of God and a lover of the Everlasting Word. What do I care about the sun? The day comes when the sun will be called from his racetrack and his light squinched out forever; the moon shall turn to blood and this here earth (will) be consumed with fire. Let them go; that won’t scare me nor trouble God’s elected people for the Word of the Lord shall endure forever; and on that Solid Rock we stand and shall not be moved.
Have I satisfied you yet? Have I proven my point? Oh, ye whose hearts are full of unbelief, are you still holding out? I reckon the reason you say the sun doesn’t move is because you are so hard to move yourself. You are a real trial to me but nevermind; I’m not giving you up yet and never will. Truth is mighty; it can break the heart of song and I must fire another arrow of truth out of the quiver of the Lord. If you have your copy of God’s Word about your person, please turn to that minor prophet, Malachi. What’s written there in the last book in the ole Bible, – look at chapter one, verse eleven, what does it say? I better read it, for I got a notion your critics don’t carry any Bible in their pockets every day in the week. Here is what is says:
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, My name shall be great amount the Gentiles….. My name shall be great among the heathen, said the Lord of hosts. How does that suit you? It looks like that ought to fix it. This time it is the Lord of hosts himself that is doing the talking and He’s is taking on a wonderful and glorious subject. He is telling of the spreading of His Gospel, of the coming of his last victory and the world wide glories that at the last, He is to get. Oh, my brethren, what time that will be. My soul takes wings as I anticipate with joy that millennium day! The glories as they shine before my eyes blind me, and I forget the sun and moon and stars. I just remember that long about those last days that the sun and moon will go out of business, for they won’t be needed no more. Then will King Jesus come back to see His people and He will be the sufficient light of the world. Joshua’s battle will be over. Hezekiah won’t need no sun dial and the sun and moon will fade out before the glorious splendors of the New Jerusalem.
But what's the matter with Jasper? I must have forgot my business and mostly got to shouting over the far away glories of the Second Coming of my Lord. I beg pardon and will try and get back to my subject. I have to do as the sun in Hezekiah’s case and fall back a few degrees. In that part of the Word that I am getting from Malachi, that the Lord Himself spoke, he declares that His glory is going to spread. Spread? Where? From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same. What? It doesn’t say that does it? Thats exactly what it says. Isn’t that clear enough for you? The Lord pities these doubting Thomas’s. Here is enough to settle it all and cure the worse cases. Walk up here, wise folks and get your medicine. Where are those high collared philosophers now? What are they skulking around in the brush for? Why don’t you get out in the broad afternoon light and fight for your colors? Ah, I understand it, you’ve got no answer. The Bible is again your answer, and in your conscience you are convicted.
But I hear you back there. What are you whispering about? I know you’re saying you sent me some papers and I never answered them. Ha, Ha, Ha! I got them. The difficulty about those papers you sent me is that they did not answer me. They never mention the Bible one time. You think so much of yourselves and so little of the Lord God and think that what you say is so smart that you can’t even speak of the Word of the Lord. When you ask me to stop believing in the Lord’s Word and to pin my faith to your words, I’m not going to do it. I take my stand by the Bible and rest my case on what it says. I take what the Lord says about my sins, about my Savior, about life, about death, about the world to come, and I take what the Lord says about the sun and moon and I care little what the haters of my God choose to say. Think that I will forsake the Bible? It is my only book, my hope, the arsenal of my soul’s supply and I want nothing else.
But I got another word for you yet. I’ve done looked over those papers that you sent me without date and without your name. You deal in figures and think you are bigger than the archangels. Let me see what you’ve done said. You set yourself up to tell me how far it is from here to the sun. You think you’ve got it down to a nice point. You say it is 3,339,022 miles from the earth to the sun. Thats what you say. Another one says that the distance is 12,000,000, another has it at 27,000,000. I hear that the great Isaac Newton worked it up to 28,000,000 and later on the philosophers raised that to 50,000,000. The last one gets it bigger than all the others, up to 90,000,000. Don’t any of them agree exactly and so they run a guessing game and the last guess is always the biggest. Now when these guessers can have a convention in Richmond and all agree upon the same thing, I’d be glad to hear from you again and I do hope that by that time you won’t be ashamed of your name.
Heaps of railroads have been built since I first saw the first one when I was fifteen years old, but I’ve never heard tell of a railroad built to the sun. I don’t see why if they can measure the distance of to the sun, they might not get up a railroad and a telegraph and enable us to find something else about it then merely how far off the sun is. They tell me that a cannon ball could make the trip to the sun in twelve years. Why don’t they send it? It might be rigged up with quarters for a few philosophers on the inside and fixed up for a comfortable ride. They would need twelve years and a heap of changes of raiment – mighty thick clothes when they start and mighty thin ones when they get there.
“Oh my brethren, these things make you laugh, and I don’t blame you for laughing, except its always sad to laugh at the folly of fools. If we could laugh them out, we might laugh day and night. What cuts into my soul is that all these men seem to me that they are hitting at the Bible. Thats what stirs my soul and fills me with righteous wrath. I care little about that the say about the sun, provided they let the Word of the Lord alone. But never mind. Let the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing. Our King shall break them them in pieces and dash them down. But blessed be the same of our God, the Word of the Lord endureth forever. Stars may fall, moons may turn to blood, and the sun set to rise no more, but Thy kingdom, oh Lord from everlasting to everlasting.
But I have a word this afternoon for my own brethren. They are the people for whose souls I get to watch, for them I got to stand and report at the last day. They are my sheep and I am their shepherd and my should is knit to them forever. Its not for me to be troubling you with these questions about them heavenly bodies. Our eyes go far beyond the smaller star, our home is clean out of sight of them twinkling orbs; the chariot that will come to take us to our Fathers mansion will sweep out by them flicking lights and never halt until it brings us in clear view of the the throne of the Lamb. Don’t hitch your hopes to no sun nor stars, Your home has Jesus for its light and your hopes must travel up that way.
I preach this sermon just to settle the minds of my few brethren, and repeat it because kin’s friends wish to hear it and I hope I will do honor to the Lords Word. But nothing short of the the pearly gates can satisfy me and I charge my people (to) fix your feet on the solid Rock, your hearts on Calvary, and your eyes on the throne of the Lamb. These strifes and griefs I soon (will) get over, we shall see the King in his glory and be at ease. Go on, go on, ye ransom of the Lord; shout his praise as you go and I shall meet you in the city of the New Jerusalem, where we shall not need the light of the sun, for the Lamb of the Lord is the light of the saints.
-
Ask any professional land surveyor about this experiment and you'll get the same answer:
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aboutcivil.org%2Fimajes%2Fcurvature-effect-on-readings.png&sp=854286e7ea1bdba9c68bae38e2c719a8)
All you need is a dumpy level, a Philadelphia rod (or a leveling staff) and some patience. The curvature of the earth can be measured anywhere there is a clear line of sight and level, solid ground. The perimeter of a lake is an easy choice, where the water level of the lake can be used for a datum line.
If there were no curvature (such as a flat earth) then no matter how far away the rod is on level ground, the level would see the same reading on the rod. But the fact is, the farther away the rod is sighted, the further the distance to the datum line, because the datum line is curving. The rate of curvature is the radius of the earth:
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.slideplayer.com%2F24%2F7031925%2Fslides%2Fslide_45.jpg&sp=e4ed8ddde9baded808b0c81d7b225864)(http://player.slideplayer.com/24/7031925/data/images/img39.jpg)
-
Ask any Navy captain about compensation in heavy artillery for curvature of the earth.
And while you're at it, ask him what the Navy does with captain hopefuls who think the earth is flat.
(Answer: They don't get to be captain.)
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.hnsa.org%2Fdoc%2Ffirecontrol%2Fimg%2Fpartc-20a.jpg&sp=58d40fa6833a2e1575001b20a0a25b5b)
If you fire your long range guns without compensating for the earth's curvature, your shells overreach the target and you'll miss every time. But the enemy doesn't make that mistake, and they compensate, and their shells hit your ship. IOW you die, the enemy lives.
-
Ask any professional land surveyor about this experiment and you'll get the same answer:
Mark Sargent asked this career land surveyor. Although, he did NOT give the answer you claim. I guess you won't like his answer:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/9BSKVE9pp60[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BSKVE9pp60
-
Ask any Navy captain about compensation in heavy artillery for curvature of the earth.
Mark Sargent also asked a Navy submarine chief and a Navy missile instructor, but you won't like their answers either, I suppose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJOB0vcZ4NI
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/xJOB0vcZ4NI[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFi98T8phoI
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/dFi98T8phoI[/youtube]
-
Mark Sargent really ought to get people who know what they're talking about.
The surveyor is entirely uninformed and couldn't possibly be responsible for his work. He's most likely a helper on a surveying team and he just does what he's told, and doesn't comprehend the values they're handling, so he sits around thinking that everyone is making up stuff.
(http://navyadministration.tpub.com/14220/img/14220_267_1.jpg)
(http://navyadministration.tpub.com/14220/img/14220_267_2.jpg)
(http://navyadministration.tpub.com/14220/img/14220_267_3.jpg)
(http://navyadministration.tpub.com/14220/img/14220_267_4.jpg)
(http://navyadministration.tpub.com/14220/img/14220_267_5.jpg)
(http://navyadministration.tpub.com/14220/img/14220_267_6.jpg)
(http://navyadministration.tpub.com/14220/img/14220_267_7.jpg)
(http://navyadministration.tpub.com/14220/img/14220_267_8.jpg)
The Navy armaments guy is attempting to say that the azimuth (he doesn't use this term because he doesn't know what it is) bearing for the north star should "flip" 180 degrees in 6 months. So he's assuming that the declination (he doesn't use that term either and doesn't know what it means) of the earth's rotational axis must be constantly changing as the earth and sun go through their 6 month cycle. But they don't. So of course, he's confused. He says "that's the really big one for me." He probably lay awake nights worrying about it but never asked any questions, poor dunce.
-
It's incredible how many youtube videos there are devoted to this topic of a flat earth.
And as far as I can tell, there isn't one out there that is in any way convincing. Most of them use poor audio/image coordination such that what is being said by the narrator has absolutely nothing to do with the changing image on the screen. It reminds me of the modern penchant of drug abusers to have a TV going all the time with the sound off while an audio track plays some radio station or CDs or i-pod set to repeat mode.
Then there are claims that the moon is also a flat disk (like the earth) and that sometimes you can see stars shining THROUGH it; that it PRODUCES ITS OWN LIGHT which has nothing to do with the sun (moonlight they say is not sunlight reflecting off of it), but A) is cold instead of hot, B) rots meat instead of preserving it, C) spoils grapes and fruit instead of making raisins or dried fruit, all because the moon's light, they say, has a corrupting influence whereas the sun's light has a beneficial influence. Maybe they've never heard of sunburn?
And none of them has any story to tell about what the moon's mechanism is for producing its own light. If they tried, they'd have to make it sound compatible with their flat-moon model and at the same time how the phases of the moon leave one portion entirely dark and another portion illuminated, with the line that divides the two sometimes straight and sometimes curved, but never curved in the wrong way.
There is no video apparently that can explain how their flat disk moon goes through phases directly related to the direction from which the sun is shining. Maybe they haven't figured that one out yet.
They attempt to explain away eclipses of the sun and moon using garbled gibberish that contradicts itself even before they're finished saying it. The sun, they say, twirls around in a circular path over the earth and at close distance (under the "dome") but never manage to describe what everyone can see at sunrise or sunset all over the earth, namely, the sun emerging or setting perpendicular (in many cases) to the horizon, while the waning or gibbous moon remains visible in the sky until it too sets about where the sun had set earlier.
The sunburst through the clouds is perhaps the most amusing nonsense they have to say, because they conveniently omit the foreground/background dimension to the sun's rays, as they presume (incorrectly) that the rays where they're coming out of the clouds are the same distance from the viewer as the rays that are reaching the ground. Never do they compare the appearance of a sunburst from directly overhead where it would seem that the sun is in the middle of the clouds, even while any airplane flying above such a scene can easily see that the sun is in the sky far away from the clouds.
It's hard to imagine that there are people going around today who really buy into this nonsense when it's so easily refuted with a few simple statements, or even a physical model if necessary.
-
well they never refuted the sears tower argument and the disappearance of objects over the horizon. There is but one explanation: that both objects sit on the same curved surface.
-
I asked this before but I didn't see any of the flat earthers respond. If the earth is flat, then how is it possible for it to be night and day at different times around the world? It seems to me that if the world is flat it would be day and night at the same time all around the world. I ask the flat-earthers to explain how this is possible. If they have already explained this I apologize for missing it.
-
(http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2016/07/moon-photobomb.jpg.662x0_q70_crop-scale.jpg)
-
well they never refuted the sears tower argument and the disappearance of objects over the horizon. There is but one explanation: that both objects sit on the same curved surface.
I agree.
However, watching the videos it becomes clear that they are deceived (either knowingly or out of lack of careful observation) and think that they can see the entire Chicago skyline when it's easy to see that they're only looking at the top half (or less) of the visible buildings. Most of Chicago's buildings are short, only several stories tall, and none of those can be seen above the water at 40 statute miles across Lake Michigan.
There are videos on youtube that claim lighthouse lights can be seen at sea by ships at much further distance than straight line visibility would allow. But nowhere do they address the phenomenon of diffusion and reflection in humid air by which the flickering light of one distant source can be carried over a curved sea by reflecting off of water droplets close to the water surface. Any sailor can tell you that when a lighthouse beacon is first visible in the distance, it is a fuzzy glow, not a point of light. The reason for that is due to how the light they see is from a series of reflections, off the water surface and off of mist hovering close to the water. The flicker is due to the changing surface of the water, which alternately reflects the light away from the viewer, or ahead toward the viewer. Since the frequency of successful reflections increases the closer the viewer gets to the light, the appearance of the light becomes gradually more focused, and eventually becomes visible as a point of light as the beacon emerges from the surface of the water.
It's utterly silly to say that a particular light is "visible" from 60 miles at sea when the precise nature of the image seen is not described. No lighthouse is entirely unseen one moment and suddenly seen in the next. They all gradually become visible first as a dim haze, and then increasing to a distinct glow, long before they are literally "visible" as a beacon shining in the distance.
Flat earthers even attempt to claim that certain experiments prove the earth is flat because some guy in a boat holding a flag on a pole traveling down a level canal is still seen by an observer close to the water using a telescope. They conveniently omit that the flag is seen much closer to the water surface before it eventually disappears entirely.
One video asserts that the Suez Canal, built entirely at sea level with no locks, is level the entire length, and therefore is always flat. Any engineer or builder knows that level is defined by the tangent to the earth's radius, and at any given point on the earth, level extends out in all directions. But as the point is moved to a mile distant (for example), the level line used previously is not the same any more, and must be adjusted for the curvature of the earth. This change is so minute and gradual that something like the Suez Canal can be constructed without ever having to make that adjustment. The construction of the canal uses builder levels all along the way, each of which only deals with distances of a few hundred yards (or meters) so the tiny adjustment is insignificant in practical application. The same applies to railroad construction. There never has been a builder's level used in such a project that is required to be more accurate than one millimeter in 100 meters. Projects are built coping with the problems immediately at hand, not several miles away.
-
I asked this before but I didn't see any of the flat earthers respond. If the earth is flat, then how is it possible for it to be night and day at different times around the world? It seems to me that if the world is flat it would be day and night at the same time all around the world. I ask the flat-earthers to explain how this is possible. If they have already explained this I apologize for missing it.
In their videos, they describe a conspicuously small sun twirling around over a flat disc they call earth. They never bother to define what manner of forces cause their dinky sun-model to move in that way. They portray the sunlight shining brightly straight down to the earth-disc, with gradually fading light off to the sides until eventually the angle is too steep (apparently, they don't explain it) for anyone on that earth-disk area to see the sun.
But it's ridiculous to propose such nonsense to anyone who has seen the sunrise or the sunset. The sun in fact comes UP from the dark horizon in the morning, and goes DOWN into the dark horizon at night. In many places this is a perpendicular rise and set of the sun past the horizon. That is not what it would look like if the sun were simply spinning around in circles overhead as the flat-earthers claim.
We see dramatic and distinct change from night to day to night again, not a slow and vague change that never really gets dark.
So you are correct, Matto, they don't explain it. They have no explanation.
-
I asked this before but I didn't see any of the flat earthers respond. If the earth is flat, then how is it possible for it to be night and day at different times around the world? It seems to me that if the world is flat it would be day and night at the same time all around the world. I ask the flat-earthers to explain how this is possible. If they have already explained this I apologize for missing it.
In their videos, they describe a conspicuously small sun twirling around over a flat disc they call earth. They never bother to define what manner of forces cause their dinky sun-model to move in that way. They portray the sunlight shining brightly straight down to the earth-disc, with gradually fading light off to the sides until eventually the angle is too steep (apparently, they don't explain it) for anyone on that earth-disk area to see the sun.
But it's ridiculous to propose such nonsense to anyone who has seen the sunrise or the sunset. The sun in fact comes UP from the dark horizon in the morning, and goes DOWN into the dark horizon at night. In many places this is a perpendicular rise and set of the sun past the horizon. That is not what it would look like if the sun were simply spinning around in circles overhead as the flat-earthers claim.
We see dramatic and distinct change from night to day to night again, not a slow and vague change that never really gets dark.
So you are correct, Matto, they don't explain it. They have no explanation.
Open this video in a new tab and go to minute 26 to see their model of a flat-earth with the "sun" twirling around inexplicably during "summer" in the northern hemisphere (they say "the north").
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
-
i saw that video. It's just a small light whirling around near the center of the disk. there is no explanation of it.
-
It's incredible how many youtube videos there are devoted to this topic of a flat earth.
And as far as I can tell, there isn't one out there that is in any way convincing. Most of them use poor audio/image coordination such that what is being said by the narrator has absolutely nothing to do with the changing image on the screen. It reminds me of the modern penchant of drug abusers to have a TV going all the time with the sound off while an audio track plays some radio station or CDs or i-pod set to repeat mode.
It is clear from the videos on youtube that the earth is flat. The horizon rises to the eye of the observer no matter how high one goes. 18 miles up and the horizon is at eye level, impossible on a sphere. Earth is not a ball. That is certain whether you choose to be contrary or not.
Then there are claims that the moon is also a flat disk (like the earth) and that sometimes you can see stars shining THROUGH it; that it PRODUCES ITS OWN LIGHT which has nothing to do with the sun (moonlight they say is not sunlight reflecting off of it), but A) is cold instead of hot, B) rots meat instead of preserving it, C) spoils grapes and fruit instead of making raisins or dried fruit, all because the moon's light, they say, has a corrupting influence whereas the sun's light has a beneficial influence. Maybe they've never heard of sunburn?
If you listen to the facts provided the videos do not say the sun doesn't burn. It does burn. And the moon is not the same light as the sun. That too can be proven fact. At full moon, take the temp under a cover, like a pergola. Then take the temp in the full moonlight. The temp in the direct moonlight will be lower than the temp under the pergola. That is the opposite of the sun, who's temp will be hotter in the direct sun and cooler in the shade. Try it yourself. The sun and moon are not what you are being told.
And none of them has any story to tell about what the moon's mechanism is for producing its own light. If they tried, they'd have to make it sound compatible with their flat-moon model and at the same time how the phases of the moon leave one portion entirely dark and another portion illuminated, with the line that divides the two sometimes straight and sometimes curved, but never curved in the wrong
There is no video apparently that can explain how their flat disk moon goes through phases directly related to the direction from which the sun is shining. Maybe they haven't figured that one out yet.
That's right, they haven't figured it out yet. They don't have the big boy toys NASA does. For what they do have, the FE'rs out there have discovered quite a lot.
They attempt to explain away eclipses of the sun and moon using garbled gibberish that contradicts itself even before they're finished saying it. The sun, they say, twirls around in a circular path over the earth and at close distance (under the "dome") but never manage to describe what everyone can see at sunrise or sunset all over the earth, namely, the sun emerging or setting perpendicular (in many cases) to the horizon, while the waning or gibbous moon remains visible in the sky until it too sets about where the sun had set earlier.
The sunburst through the clouds is perhaps the most amusing nonsense they have to say, because they conveniently omit the foreground/background dimension to the sun's rays, as they presume (incorrectly) that the rays where they're coming out of the clouds are the same distance from the viewer as the rays that are reaching the ground. Never do they compare the appearance of a sunburst from directly overhead where it would seem that the sun is in the middle of the clouds, even while any airplane flying above such a scene can easily see that the sun is in the sky far away from the clouds.
The sun's rays never come in parallel in order to prove it is 93,000,000 miles away as the Kabbalists pretend.
It's hard to imagine that there are people going around today who really buy into this nonsense when it's so easily refuted with a few simple statements, or even a physical model if necessary.
As the NASA cabal dreamed, more sheeple to carry on the lie. You probably got an apron and a ring along with the rest of the NASA boys and global elite faking the ball earth.
-
ok, go get your tremendously powerful telescope and tell me when you can see England from the east coast of the US. You will never be able to do it, no matter if you had the strongest possible lens. Why? Because the line of sight will be a tangent to the earth. This tangent will be above the shore of England and so you will not be able to see it. Why? Because that tangent is the tangent to the earth, which is curved. If the earth were not curved, I can assure you that you could see England(barring fog and other obstacles).
The Sun is 8 million miles away and yet you can see it. Why? Because the Sun and the earth do not both sit on a curved surface as England and Rhode Island, for example,do.
You do know that modern science hold that the sun is 93 MILLION miles away, not EIGHT - right?
The flat earth model hold that the sun is close - less than 3,000 miles overhead.
Yes, indeed you could see across the sea if you had a high enough vantage point, a clear day, and a very powerful telescope in the flat earth model.
The longest reported distances sighted at sea are around 250 miles away.
yes, on the flat earth model. but in the real world, the one that enjoys a reality outside your head, you wouldn't be able to see England. Tell me why they need relays for radio and TV signals if there is flat earth. If the sun were 3000 miles away you would be vaporized. the ancient people who developed these flat earth models didn't know as much as we do about the physical world. They had neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for scientific thought.
If you had a high enough vantage point, you said. Of course, that's because you would need that height to get a tangent over the earth's curved surface. With a flat earth you should need no "high enough vantage point". if your theory is correct, you should be able to see across the diameter of the disk with a telescope, provided there are no elevated land masses obstructing it. You cannot devise an experiment that will confirm this. Why? Because the earth isn't flat! you will loose the tangent line due to a curved earth. I want to see this experiment done.
-
ok, go get your tremendously powerful telescope and tell me when you can see England from the east coast of the US. You will never be able to do it, no matter if you had the strongest possible lens. Why? Because the line of sight will be a tangent to the earth. This tangent will be above the shore of England and so you will not be able to see it. Why? Because that tangent is the tangent to the earth, which is curved. If the earth were not curved, I can assure you that you could see England(barring fog and other obstacles).
The Sun is 8 million miles away and yet you can see it. Why? Because the Sun and the earth do not both sit on a curved surface as England and Rhode Island, for example,do.
You do know that modern science hold that the sun is 93 MILLION miles away, not EIGHT - right?
The flat earth model hold that the sun is close - less than 3,000 miles overhead.
Yes, indeed you could see across the sea if you had a high enough vantage point, a clear day, and a very powerful telescope in the flat earth model.
The longest reported distances sighted at sea are around 250 miles away.
yes, on the flat earth model. but in the real world, the one that enjoys a reality outside your head, you wouldn't be able to see England. Tell me why they need relays for radio and TV signals if there is flat earth. If the sun were 3000 miles away you would be vaporized. the ancient people who developed these flat earth models didn't know as much as we do about the physical world. They had neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for scientific thought.
If you had a high enough vantage point, you said. Of course, that's because you would need that height to get a tangent over the earth's curved surface. With a flat earth you should need no "high enough vantage point". if your theory is correct, you should be able to see across the diameter of the disk with a telescope, provided there are no elevated land masses obstructing it. You cannot devise an experiment that will confirm this. Why? Because the earth isn't flat! you will loose the tangent line due to a curved earth. I want to see this experiment done.
You don't need a high vantage point. The horizon line is always flat and visually rises to the eye level of the observer which proves the earth is flat.
-
ok, go get your tremendously powerful telescope and tell me when you can see England from the east coast of the US. You will never be able to do it, no matter if you had the strongest possible lens. Why? Because the line of sight will be a tangent to the earth. This tangent will be above the shore of England and so you will not be able to see it. Why? Because that tangent is the tangent to the earth, which is curved. If the earth were not curved, I can assure you that you could see England(barring fog and other obstacles).
The Sun is 8 million miles away and yet you can see it. Why? Because the Sun and the earth do not both sit on a curved surface as England and Rhode Island, for example,do.
You do know that modern science hold that the sun is 93 MILLION miles away, not EIGHT - right?
The flat earth model hold that the sun is close - less than 3,000 miles overhead.
Yes, indeed you could see across the sea if you had a high enough vantage point, a clear day, and a very powerful telescope in the flat earth model.
The longest reported distances sighted at sea are around 250 miles away.
yes, on the flat earth model. but in the real world, the one that enjoys a reality outside your head, you wouldn't be able to see England. Tell me why they need relays for radio and TV signals if there is flat earth. If the sun were 3000 miles away you would be vaporized. the ancient people who developed these flat earth models didn't know as much as we do about the physical world. They had neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for scientific thought.
If you had a high enough vantage point, you said. Of course, that's because you would need that height to get a tangent over the earth's curved surface. With a flat earth you should need no "high enough vantage point". if your theory is correct, you should be able to see across the diameter of the disk with a telescope, provided there are no elevated land masses obstructing it. You cannot devise an experiment that will confirm this. Why? Because the earth isn't flat! you will loose the tangent line due to a curved earth. I want to see this experiment done.
You don't need a high vantage point. The horizon line is always flat and visually rises to the eye level of the observer which proves the earth is flat.
When you insist on remaining at low elevation proclaiming that you don't need a high vantage point, then you'll persist in your ignorance.
Have you ever been to a high vantage point with surveying equipment and performed measurements on the horizon?
I have. I have seen a level line all around me that goes into the sky in every direction, far above the horizon line. The closest land to this horizontal plane were the peaks of other mountains nearby. Everything else was far below my sight plane.
A high vantage point makes a difference. At 10,000 feet above the horizon, the curvature of the earth can be SEEN and MEASURED. It does not "rise to the eye level of the observer" as you say in your ignorance. I know what you're saying is false because I have seen it with my own eyes, which you have not. So you're ignorant of the truth, and merely repeating the lie that you have heard, in ignorant nonsense.
-
Neil Obstat,
Judging by your signature, you are a HAM radio operator. If this is correct, you may be able to demonstrate to some of these flat earthers how radio waves work.
My father was a life time Ham operator, during the 60's, he and some friends would go up on the Sawatch Range in Colorado, this range has 8 peaks of 14,000'+, and they where able to transmit around the globe when conditions where right. I don't remember what he said what his wattage was, but it was very low.
-
Neil Obstat,
Judging by your signature, you are a HAM radio operator. If this is correct, you may be able to demonstrate to some of these flat earthers how radio waves work.
My father was a life time Ham operator, during the 60's, he and some friends would go up on the Sawatch Range in Colorado, this range has 8 peaks of 14,000'+, and they where able to transmit around the globe when conditions where right. I don't remember what he said what his wattage was, but it was very low.
Well, that would be nice but I don't do HAM.
We're dealing with people who have no answer for something as simple as, What mechanism causes the phases of the moon to appear as they do so consistently and predictably? If they can't answer that, how would they be able to answer something so much less tangible as the propagation of radio waves around the world?
They have no answer for the phases of Mars or Venus, either. And these are things amateur astronomers observe through their own telescopes.
What about the retrograde motion of the planets, which can be predicted long in advance using our knowledge of their orbital trajectory around the sun -- unless you deny that knowledge like the flat-earthers do.
Do flat-earthers use telescopes? They sure don't seem to know anything about using them.
If they were honest, they would come out and say that there is no such thing as telescopes.
-
ok, go get your tremendously powerful telescope and tell me when you can see England from the east coast of the US. You will never be able to do it, no matter if you had the strongest possible lens. Why? Because the line of sight will be a tangent to the earth. This tangent will be above the shore of England and so you will not be able to see it. Why? Because that tangent is the tangent to the earth, which is curved. If the earth were not curved, I can assure you that you could see England(barring fog and other obstacles).
The Sun is 8 million miles away and yet you can see it. Why? Because the Sun and the earth do not both sit on a curved surface as England and Rhode Island, for example,do.
You do know that modern science hold that the sun is 93 MILLION miles away, not EIGHT - right?
The flat earth model hold that the sun is close - less than 3,000 miles overhead.
Yes, indeed you could see across the sea if you had a high enough vantage point, a clear day, and a very powerful telescope in the flat earth model.
The longest reported distances sighted at sea are around 250 miles away.
yes, on the flat earth model. but in the real world, the one that enjoys a reality outside your head, you wouldn't be able to see England. Tell me why they need relays for radio and TV signals if there is flat earth. If the sun were 3000 miles away you would be vaporized. the ancient people who developed these flat earth models didn't know as much as we do about the physical world. They had neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for scientific thought.
If you had a high enough vantage point, you said. Of course, that's because you would need that height to get a tangent over the earth's curved surface. With a flat earth you should need no "high enough vantage point". if your theory is correct, you should be able to see across the diameter of the disk with a telescope, provided there are no elevated land masses obstructing it. You cannot devise an experiment that will confirm this. Why? Because the earth isn't flat! you will loose the tangent line due to a curved earth. I want to see this experiment done.
You don't need a high vantage point. The horizon line is always flat and visually rises to the eye level of the observer which proves the earth is flat.
When you insist on remaining at low elevation proclaiming that you don't need a high vantage point, then you'll persist in your ignorance.
Have you ever been to a high vantage point with surveying equipment and performed measurements on the horizon?
I have. I have seen a level line all around me that goes into the sky in every direction, far above the horizon line. The closest land to this horizontal plane were the peaks of other mountains nearby. Everything else was far below my sight plane.
A high vantage point makes a difference. At 10,000 feet above the horizon, the curvature of the earth can be SEEN and MEASURED. It does not "rise to the eye level of the observer" as you say in your ignorance. I know what you're saying is false because I have seen it with my own eyes, which you have not. So you're ignorant of the truth, and merely repeating the lie that you have heard, in ignorant nonsense.
I have been at high elevations and the horizon always has no curvature to it. The earth is flat. The sooner you realize you can't support the Freemasons the better your life will be.
-
ok, go get your tremendously powerful telescope and tell me when you can see England from the east coast of the US. You will never be able to do it, no matter if you had the strongest possible lens. Why? Because the line of sight will be a tangent to the earth. This tangent will be above the shore of England and so you will not be able to see it. Why? Because that tangent is the tangent to the earth, which is curved. If the earth were not curved, I can assure you that you could see England(barring fog and other obstacles).
The Sun is 8 million miles away and yet you can see it. Why? Because the Sun and the earth do not both sit on a curved surface as England and Rhode Island, for example,do.
You do know that modern science hold that the sun is 93 MILLION miles away, not EIGHT - right?
The flat earth model hold that the sun is close - less than 3,000 miles overhead.
Yes, indeed you could see across the sea if you had a high enough vantage point, a clear day, and a very powerful telescope in the flat earth model.
The longest reported distances sighted at sea are around 250 miles away.
yes, on the flat earth model. but in the real world, the one that enjoys a reality outside your head, you wouldn't be able to see England. Tell me why they need relays for radio and TV signals if there is flat earth. If the sun were 3000 miles away you would be vaporized. the ancient people who developed these flat earth models didn't know as much as we do about the physical world. They had neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for scientific thought.
If you had a high enough vantage point, you said. Of course, that's because you would need that height to get a tangent over the earth's curved surface. With a flat earth you should need no "high enough vantage point". if your theory is correct, you should be able to see across the diameter of the disk with a telescope, provided there are no elevated land masses obstructing it. You cannot devise an experiment that will confirm this. Why? Because the earth isn't flat! you will loose the tangent line due to a curved earth. I want to see this experiment done.
You don't need a high vantage point. The horizon line is always flat and visually rises to the eye level of the observer which proves the earth is flat.
When you insist on remaining at low elevation proclaiming that you don't need a high vantage point, then you'll persist in your ignorance.
Have you ever been to a high vantage point with surveying equipment and performed measurements on the horizon?
I have. I have seen a level line all around me that goes into the sky in every direction, far above the horizon line. The closest land to this horizontal plane were the peaks of other mountains nearby. Everything else was far below my sight plane.
A high vantage point makes a difference. At 10,000 feet above the horizon, the curvature of the earth can be SEEN and MEASURED. It does not "rise to the eye level of the observer" as you say in your ignorance. I know what you're saying is false because I have seen it with my own eyes, which you have not. So you're ignorant of the truth, and merely repeating the lie that you have heard, in ignorant nonsense.
This is a classic example stubborn. ALL HEIGHTS view a flat earth and a horizon that rises to the eye of the viewer. A globe would necessarily have a "horizon" that dropped as one rose to the higher levels. That NEVER happens in the real world.
-
Attached file: sunhotspot.jpg
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9436)
The quoted posting is accessible via <http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=330#p1>
Are readers expected to interpret the white question mark in the red arrow as identifying some mysterious "hotspot" that can be "scientifically" explained only by Flat-Earth faithful?
If so, they're just plain wrong!  The target of that arrow: a butter-yellow oval, is obviously a reflection of the Sun from a sheet of water on the ground: Either open water, such as a lake, or surface water in a "wetland", such as a swamp.
The very fuzzy focus of that reflection is caused by
· lens flare superimposed on on some combination of
· focus on some relatively near plane (much nearer the lens than infinity, perhaps to make the nearly silhouetted obtrusive sign "dogcam" legible), apparently aggravated by
· imaging at a sharply low angle thro' a layer of aerosol moisture above the ground (likely ground-hugging, but not necessarily dense enough to be perceived at ground-level as fog per se), and possibly by
· diffusion thro' whatever vegetation rises above the surface of that water (when it's not open water).
Yes, that light does travel 93 million miles from the Sun, then bounces at an equal angle from (the tangent to) the water's surface, into the imaging lens.
It becomes a familiar sight, stripped of all potential mystery, to anyone possesses even modest analytical skills, who's had the opportunity to watch the passing terrain during airplane flights over water-intensive places like Florida - , especially when the Sun appears at a sharply low angle in the sky.
------
Note *: Or (I assume) the "Land of 10,000 Lakes" in Minnesota. But certainly over various coastal areas along the Gulf states of the U.S.A.,
notably Louisiana, plus the inland misnomer "Mississippi Delta"[**].
Note **: Not to be confused with the "Mississippi River Delta". In this instance, by "Mississippi Delta", I refer to river-delta-like terrain in a specific N.W. region of the State of Mississippi, N. of Vicksburg, bounded on the W. by the Mississippi River, lacking an easily describable E. boundary (i.e.: not the Yazoo River, altho' the region doesn't extend much farther E. than I-55). I didn't choose the regrettably confusing name; long-dead Mississippians did.
-
You remind me of the time I was in a passenger jet flying above Italy at low elevation. There were numerous patches of standing water on the ground because it had rained recently. As the plane moved over them, we could see the reflection of the afternoon sun in the surface of water below us. The sky was a little overcast so the reflection was not a sharp image of the sun, rather a "hot spot" as in the photo above. It was very interesting to see that highlight remain in the sky above us as we moved over the ground.
The amount of curvature of the earth over that small of space on the ground is very small, and it has only a very small effect on the shape of the sun's reflection. If the earth were flat, the reflection would be larger but imperceptibly so; but since the earth is a spheroid and the surface of the water is ever so slightly curved, the reflection is consequently smaller, in the same way that an image reflected in a convex mirror is smaller than the same image reflected in a flat mirror.
-
Let me introduce a Catholic remark on Flat earth theory.
First of all why is this subject up on a Catholic forum? The Church never considered the subject at all. Catholics could therefore believe what they like, even today.
This might be of interest to some:
'Another objection sometimes brought in to ridicule the Fathers is that of the antipodes. The Fathers were unanimous on the theology of this question, but not on its geography. Lactantius (early 4th century) seems to have believed the earth to be flat and therefore, there would be no difficulty in fulfilling the command to go and preach to all nations and the Psalmist’s prophecy that their sound would go forth unto all the earth. (Divine Institutes, Bk.III., ch.24) But St. Augustine (d. 430) held to the earth’s sphericity and so, the prophecy of Psalm 18:5 presented some difficulty in terms of travel. (City of God, Bk. 16, ch. 9)' -- Paula haigh.
-
Let me introduce a Catholic remark on Flat earth theory.
First of all why is this subject up on a Catholic forum? The Church never considered the subject at all. Catholics could therefore believe what they like, even today.
This might be of interest to some:
'Another objection sometimes brought in to ridicule the Fathers is that of the antipodes. The Fathers were unanimous on the theology of this question, but not on its geography. Lactantius (early 4th century) seems to have believed the earth to be flat and therefore, there would be no difficulty in fulfilling the command to go and preach to all nations and the Psalmist’s prophecy that their sound would go forth unto all the earth. (Divine Institutes, Bk.III., ch.24) But St. Augustine (d. 430) held to the earth’s sphericity and so, the prophecy of Psalm 18:5 presented some difficulty in terms of travel. (City of God, Bk. 16, ch. 9)' -- Paula haigh.
It is very obvious why this subject is on a Catholic forum.
We worship God. God created the flat earth. God is good.
-
A high vantage point makes a difference. At 10,000 feet above the horizon, the curvature of the earth can be SEEN and MEASURED. It does not "rise to the eye level of the observer" as you say in your ignorance. I know what you're saying is false because I have seen it with my own eyes, which you have not.
Neil's response here is LITERALLY laugh-out-loud funny!
I had the opportunity to fly a LOT last year.
I'll be back in just a bit to show all the UTTERLY FLAT horizon photos with ZERO CURVATURE that I took from my window seat at 33K-35K feet.
This is going to be fun!
-
Let me introduce a Catholic remark on Flat earth theory.
The Church never considered the subject at all. Catholics could therefore believe what they like, even today.
Great!
Than a Catholic's best bet is to stick to the Bible, which says indisputably that the earth is flat!
-
How do we have a 37 page thread on something anyone can easily verify on the shore on a clear day?
Here, have a video. One continuous clip, no edits. Shows how a building on the shore of a distant island disappears under the horizon when he changes his elevation by a dozen feet or so. You can clearly see the building at 1:00, and clearly not see it at 2:40.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bco_p4V7-QU
-
Flat, eye-level horizon at 35,000 feet.
Note how HUGE and close the sun is!
-
This is a nice one, because it not only shows the flat, level horizon, but it also shows the convergence of the parallel lines of the roads below into the vanishing point.
Perspective is a very important thing to understand when trying to visualize the flat earth model.
This lack of understanding is the reason why Neil cannot comprehend sunrise and sunset on the flat earth model.
-
You can obtain some very useful information from looking at these photographs.
For example, at this altitude, 35,000 feet, you can only see for a very limited area across the ground - probably only a few hundred miles.
If you look at some high altitude balloon videos, which are at 80,000-100,000 feet, you can recognize enough landmarks to see that the viewable area is only about 500-700 miles at most.
Therefore, you can see that our ability to view is actually quite small when we know that the United States is roughly 2,800 miles across.
It is my personal view that no vehicle can attain enough altitude due to the dome of the Firmament, to view the entire flat plane of the earth.
This is therefore the reason why the horizon always remains at eye-level: the earth continues to scroll away from you (from your point of view) as you attain altitude, no matter how high you go, because it is so very vast. You cannot get high enough to "look down" upon it.
Only God in Heaven can look down upon the earth - not man.
-
Again, a flat eye-level horizon.
This is a very good photo because it is cloudless.
There is dust in the air and some humidity, but no clouds.
It illustrates well the limited distance that one can see (even from such a great height) due to the lines of the fields below.
-
The one was taken shooting straight up from my seat, as we passed directly underneath the sun at high noon. It's very large and close.
-
You can't even make out the horizon line in that last image due to the haze, so it demonstrates exactly nothing. Regarding the others, I hate to break it to you, but I added a horizon line, and you can clearly see the horizon sticking up above the flat line.
Edit: You added one more while I was posting. "Last" refers to 2nd last.
-
Flying high above the (flat) clouds!
-
This was taken at a very low altitude just after takeoff - it's soooo FLAT!
-
x
-
This one nicely illustrates the spotlight, directional nature of light from the sun and its relative closeness. You can trace the light rays straight to the sun, showing its closeness, and you can see the hotspot where the light rays are directly hitting some small lakes.
-
The mental gymnastics required to look at a picture of sunlight diffused through a cloudbank and think that they tell you anything conclusive about the source's direction are beyond me. Are you aware of how diffusion and refraction of light work?
-
The mental gymnastics required to look at a picture of sunlight diffused through a cloudbank and think that they tell you anything conclusive about the source's direction are beyond me. Are you aware of how diffusion and refraction of light work?
That you could take a photo that clearly shows a straight line and attempt to argue that it is BENT is truly an amazing display of cognitive dissonance.
-
The mental gymnastics required to look at a picture of sunlight diffused through a cloudbank and think that they tell you anything conclusive about the source's direction are beyond me. Are you aware of how diffusion and refraction of light work?
Here's another demonstration of the exact same effect: a light beam from a laser shining through water vapor (the fog machine) and also light beams emanating from the light bulbs on the ceiling showing their beams.
Is the light bent in any way as it left its source? No, it is not.
Is the light bent in any way at all?
No, it is not.
The sun photos show the exact same thing on a larger scale: the light source is able to show the individual beams which are able to be delineated by the presence of the water vapor, i.e. clouds.
-
Why are there no sunburst photos taken at high noon?
Why are they all evening shots close to sundown?
Hmm?
-
A high vantage point makes a difference. At 10,000 feet above the horizon, the curvature of the earth can be SEEN and MEASURED. It does not "rise to the eye level of the observer" as you say in your ignorance. I know what you're saying is false because I have seen it with my own eyes, which you have not.
Neil's response here is LITERALLY laugh-out-loud funny!
I had the opportunity to fly a LOT last year.
I'll be back in just a bit to show all the UTTERLY FLAT horizon photos with ZERO CURVATURE that I took from my window seat at 33K-35K feet.
This is going to be fun!
You can laugh all you want, like they do all day and night in the funny farm.
You're going to have a problem comparing what I'm describing to your photos out of a plane's window. They're not the same in any way whatsoever.
I had terra firma under my feet at 14,500 ft. above sea level. You did not. There's a difference.
-
You're going to have a problem comparing what I'm describing to your photos out of a plane's window. They're not the same in any way whatsoever.
I had terra firma under my feet at 14,500 ft. above sea level. You did not. There's a difference.
Well then, I await your photos of that blessed day and all its "curvature" with bated breath!
-
Can airplanes fly past the end of the earth or will they crash into the firmament? Has this ever happened?
-
Why are there no sunburst photos taken at high noon?
You mean like this?
-
You're going to have a problem comparing what I'm describing to your photos out of a plane's window. They're not the same in any way whatsoever.
I had terra firma under my feet at 14,500 ft. above sea level. You did not. There's a difference.
Well then, I await your photos of that blessed day and all its "curvature" with bated breath!
You'd be waiting a long time. I didn't have any way of taking a photo of what I could see in the scope. The point wasn't to demonstrate the curvature of the earth, which had already been well-established. I just wanted to see what a level line would look like over the horizon, and it was plain to see.
I'm only posting this because I don't have any doubts. What I saw that day is not difficult to describe but it would take some specialized equipment to docuмent. And after all that, there would hardly be any point of trying to describe it to you because you simply don't want to learn anything.
Your loss.
-
Can airplanes fly past the end of the earth or will they crash into the firmament? Has this ever happened?
Look at a FE map. The edge is all ice - Antarctica. Can't fly over it to reach the "edge" or the Firmament.
-
You'd be waiting a long time. I didn't have any way of taking a photo of what I could see in the scope. The point wasn't to demonstrate the curvature of the earth, which had already been well-established. I just wanted to see what a level line would look like over the horizon, and it was plain to see.
I'm only posting this because I don't have any doubts. What I saw that day is not difficult to describe but it would take some specialized equipment to docuмent. And after all that, there would hardly be any point of trying to describe it to you because you simply don't want to learn anything.
Your loss.
On the contrary, I've learned more in FE than I learned in a long time. It's fascinating and I collect FE books, ancient and modern.
You have a lot of "deception" to unlearn.
There are plenty of pictures from mountaintops higher than yours that show ZERO curvature.
-
Can airplanes fly past the end of the earth or will they crash into the firmament? Has this ever happened?
Look at a FE map. The edge is all ice - Antarctica. Can't fly over it to reach the "edge" or the Firmament.
So the ice is thirty thousand feet high? I didn't know that. I thought the firmament came from the ground around the edge of the world and then curved above us and that there was water above the firmament.
-
Can airplanes fly past the end of the earth or will they crash into the firmament? Has this ever happened?
Look at a FE map. The edge is all ice - Antarctica. Can't fly over it to reach the "edge" or the Firmament.
So the ice is thirty thousand feet high? I didn't know that. I thought the firmament came from the ground around the edge of the world and then curved above us and that there was water above the firmament.
:roll-laugh1:
This is hilarious! Wouldn't we be able to see the "ice wall" all around on a flat plain?
-
Can airplanes fly past the end of the earth or will they crash into the firmament? Has this ever happened?
Look at a FE map. The edge is all ice - Antarctica. Can't fly over it to reach the "edge" or the Firmament.
So the ice is thirty thousand feet high? I didn't know that. I thought the firmament came from the ground around the edge of the world and then curved above us and that there was water above the firmament.
Why would you think that?? No FE model claims that.
There's plenty of pictures of the ice wall and the flat plane of ice beyond it. How far it extends is unknown. There are mountain peaks and volcanoes at the beginning of the ice that are 12,000 feet high.
-
Can airplanes fly past the end of the earth or will they crash into the firmament? Has this ever happened?
Look at a FE map. The edge is all ice - Antarctica. Can't fly over it to reach the "edge" or the Firmament.
So the ice is thirty thousand feet high? I didn't know that. I thought the firmament came from the ground around the edge of the world and then curved above us and that there was water above the firmament.
Why would you think that?? No FE model claims that.
There's plenty of pictures of the ice wall and the flat plane of ice beyond it. How far it extends is unknown. There are mountain peaks and volcanoes at the beginning of the ice that are 12,000 feet high.
Because you said airplanes cannot fly over the ice. Airplanes fly over 30 thousand feet high so if they cannot fly over the ice I thought it must be that high.
-
You're going to have a problem comparing what I'm describing to your photos out of a plane's window. They're not the same in any way whatsoever.
I had terra firma under my feet at 14,500 ft. above sea level. You did not. There's a difference.
Well then, I await your photos of that blessed day and all its "curvature" with bated breath!
You'd be waiting a long time. I didn't have any way of taking a photo of what I could see in the scope. The point wasn't to demonstrate the curvature of the earth, which had already been well-established. I just wanted to see what a level line would look like over the horizon, and it was plain to see.
I'm only posting this because I don't have any doubts. What I saw that day is not difficult to describe but it would take some specialized equipment to docuмent. And after all that, there would hardly be any point of trying to describe it to you because you simply don't want to learn anything.
Your loss.
Mt Whitney?
-
Can airplanes fly past the end of the earth or will they crash into the firmament? Has this ever happened?
Look at a FE map. The edge is all ice - Antarctica. Can't fly over it to reach the "edge" or the Firmament.
So the ice is thirty thousand feet high? I didn't know that. I thought the firmament came from the ground around the edge of the world and then curved above us and that there was water above the firmament.
Why would you think that?? No FE model claims that.
There's plenty of pictures of the ice wall and the flat plane of ice beyond it. How far it extends is unknown. There are mountain peaks and volcanoes at the beginning of the ice that are 12,000 feet high.
Because you said airplanes cannot fly over the ice. Airplanes fly over 30 thousand feet high so if they cannot fly over the ice I thought it must be that high.
I'm sorry, I guess I didn't use the best words to describe...what I meant was no one has traversed the ice completely by air. This is because the shape is not what is shown on the globe map.
-
Let me introduce a Catholic remark on Flat earth theory.
The Church never considered the subject at all. Catholics could therefore believe what they like, even today.
Great!
Then a Catholic's best bet is to stick to the Bible, which says indisputably that the earth is flat!
OK mw2016, quote me. I understand the Bible also inferred the earth is a globe: ‘It is he who sitteth upon the globe of the earth…’ (Isaias 40:22)
Here then is another theory. In the beginning there was only one landmass. thus a flat earth impression prevailed.
Where is Hell in the flat earth theory? Heaven is all outside the cosmos. hell was placed inside global earth. Thus Hell was as far away from the heavens as possible.
A flat earth theory doesn't seem to conform with this.
-
Let me introduce a Catholic remark on Flat earth theory.
The Church never considered the subject at all. Catholics could therefore believe what they like, even today.
Great!
Then a Catholic's best bet is to stick to the Bible, which says indisputably that the earth is flat!
OK mw2016, quote me. I understand the Bible also inferred the earth is a globe: ‘It is he who sitteth upon the globe of the earth…’ (Isaias 40:22)
Here then is another theory. In the beginning there was only one landmass. thus a flat earth impression prevailed.
Where is Hell in the flat earth theory? Heaven is all outside the cosmos. hell was placed inside global earth. Thus Hell was as far away from the heavens as possible.
A flat earth theory doesn't seem to conform with this.
It's not globe, it says "circle."
From the Latin Vulgate:
http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/27040.htm
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Qui sedet super gyrum terrae, et habitatores ejus sunt quasi locustae; qui extendit velut nihilum caelos, et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum;
The Hebrew word is chug:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm
Short Definition: circle
chug: vault, horizon
Original Word: ????
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: chug
Phonetic Spelling: (khoog)
to inscribe, to compass, to go around, to make a circle
The Latin word is gyrum, which comes from gyrus, which means "about" to "go around, about," to "make a circuit" as in a "circle."
Etymology[edit]
From Ancient Greek ????? ?(gûros)
Pronunciation[edit]
(Classical) IPA(key): /??y?.rus/
Noun[edit]
g?rus m ?(genitive g?r?); second declension
circle
a circular motion
a circuit, course, ring
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=translate+Qui+sedet+super+gyrum+terrae%2C
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=translate+Qui+sedet+super+gyrum+terrae%2C
Hell is underground as described, see illustration:
-
The following youtube video is a great example of how foolish the flat-earthers can be when trying to argue their untenable position.
Go to minute 10:55 to see the beginning of the narrator's commentary on a video he obtained from someone else (which is okay), the showing of which he expects will support his position, but it does no such thing. He does not say what the elevation of the camera was above sea level, which is an important fact if you want to calculate the visibility of distant objects (as the narrator pretends to do at minute 18).
See the ship being observed close to shore as it departs on a course taking it out to sea. Notice the red hull of the ship. The superstructure above the red hull is white or grey.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/zEqDbsPUgH8[/youtube]
The waterline of the ship is not readily seen, since it is obscured by a thin band of reflective haze over the water. For a minute or two, you can see a thin band of white below the red hull under the white bridge area of the ship. The water line (same as the horizon line now; at greater distance the horizon line begins to rise up above the water line) is located halfway between these two white areas, the lower half of which is a reflection of the top half as if a mirror were lying on the surface of the water, facing up.
At minute 13:02 he draws some black lines on a still frame attempting to describe this reflected area, but he gets his water line a bit low. You can see some of the reflected red hull above his line, when everything above his line ought to be the ship itself, not the reflection of the ship (he calls it "the mirage zone").
The point of this is the following: Notice the red hull, and how big it is. It is the most prominent visible feature of the ship at this distance.
At minute 14:30 he plays the "Hawaii Five-O" theme song, while the red hull shrinks in height.
Now at 15:48, he zooms in again to find the red hull is no longer visible. Does he mention this fact? No, he does not.
At 16:35, when he hopes you have forgotten about the prominent red hull, he points out "an almost complete reflection of the bridge" as the lower portion of the bridge is being lost in the reflection zone. This reflection zone used to be the waterline but now it's the horizon line, which is RISING with respect to the ship, due (obviously) to the curvature of the earth, which the narrator presumes to deny its existence. Remember the two tiny windows on the bridge: they're getting closer together now, which helps gauge the amount of the bridge that is being lost under the horizon line.
Again, does the narrator mention anything about the red hull that was at first prominent and now no longer visible at all?
On the contrary, he ignores the missing red hull and proclaims that "we can see the entire boat, even down to the very bottom" (18:50).
The red hull is gone and half the superstructure is lost under the horizon line, and soon the entire ship will be hidden from view, because it is passing beyond the line of sight from shore, all due to the curvature of the earth.
However, in his silly nonsensical fantasy, the narrator of this video takes this evidence of the earth's curvature and says it proves the earth has no curvature.
Fail.
-
Neil, why do you keep dodging the Biblical question by constantly changing the subject?
-
I will try to address some of the other points later, but first, a note on horizon photography. All of the pictures above are inconclusive with regards to the horizon for a variety of reasons, but two immediately jump out at me. First, the horizon is indistinct in most of them, and second, the field of vision is narrow. A quick search puts the number at a ~60 degree FoV to see visible curvature at 30,000 ft.
Further confusing the issue are the camera lens and window pane, both of which distort the image. A simple optical analysis will show that the wider a camera lens' FoV, the higher the distortion. Modern hand-held cameras of the point-and-shoot variety (including cell phone cameras) have pretty crummy lenses, but they do a fair bit of work on the chip to remove distortion before presenting the image to the viewer.
One detail that is relevant to the discussion at hand: if you take a picture of a straight horizontal line, but it is in the top half of your frame, it will bow slightly upwards, and vice versa for the bottom half of your frame. The bowing is small but non-zero for any normal lens, but you can confirm it by taking 3 pictures of the same horizontal line (one top half of frame, one center, one bottom half). This effect is larger the wider your lens FoV is!
In summary, if you want a horizon picture that you can draw any conclusions from, you need the following:
1. High altitude (30k ft idea. You might be able to swing it at 20k with a very high definition camera.
2. Your horizon line should be in the center of your frame.
3. Needs to be a clear day so you get a well defined horizon (otherwise it's hazy and indistinct).
4. Even if you get all that, the horizon would only curve up a handful of pixels, so you can't just eyeball it. You need to actually draw a line to check.
With all this said, let's look at mw2016's pictures, starting on page 37 of this thread.
1. Shows the top surface of the clouds. Even if everything else were fine, there is no horizon here...
2. Horizon is a little hazy due to cloud cover, but I did draw a line on this one. It appears the horizon does bow up a little above it. You could write it off as indistinct or due to distortion. So this either shows curvature or is inconclusive.
3. Very hazy. No clear horizon line that I could make out to draw a line across.
4. A picture of lens flare from the sun?!?! :confused1:
Onto page 38!
5. Surface of the clouds. No horizon...
6. Mountainous uneven horizon. Also tilted, so distortion could affect this one. Also pretty low altitude compared to the previous ones. Useless for these purposes.
7. Honestly not sure here. I think I got a horizon, but there's a lot of dark clouds deep in the picture, so it's tricky. Inconclusive.
8. Disco lights. :rahrah:
Aaaand that's it for pictures. Long story short, you posted a bunch, and I fail to see how any of them show anything.
One source for some of the details of camera stuff: http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf
There are plenty of others. Lenses are pretty simple, so it's not hard to do the math for yourselves if you are skeptical.
Oh and one note regarding the Biblical stuff: you literally posted a link to the D-R where it refers to the "globe of the earth", and used it to defend your "circle of the earth" position. :applause:
-
Oh and one note regarding the Biblical stuff: you literally posted a link to the D-R where it refers to the "globe of the earth", and used it to defend your "circle of the earth" position. :applause:
Your reading comprehension seems poor. Did you miss the Latin? It says gyrum - gyrum does not translate to globe. You see?
-
So what you are telling us is that you know better than all the scholars and monks that did the translation?
And on the topic of ignoring things, there is a rather large block of text you ignored above that little comment.
-
Even if 'circle' is the exact translation, and not 'globe', this is not a slam dunk proof of a flat earth. My first thought when seeing the word circle, was that a globe and circle can be the same thing. One can still 'go around' the earth if it's a globe, so the 'circular' argument is inconclusive.
-
The Transglobe Expedition circuмnavigated the poles.
You Tubers might make sexy flat earth videos, but the truth
is not on their side.
I believe they are a psyop.
http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-flat-earth-frenzy.html
-
Without the time for me right now to research what I remember from my youth, I'll just throw the question out there.
Are those who believe that Scripture refers to the world being flat (literally), not taking into consideration the geographical characteristics of the earth prior to the "Great Deluge"?
-
Neil, why do you keep dodging the Biblical question by constantly changing the subject?
You seem to have forgotten what thread this is. The thread title has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible is not a science book. You're off topic again, while I'm sticking to the topic. The subject of this thread is not the Biblical question, but rather "scientific proof" (even while after 40 pages no one has managed to explain how science can "prove" anything).
-
Even if 'circle' is the exact translation, and not 'globe', this is not a slam dunk proof of a flat earth. My first thought when seeing the word circle, was that a globe and circle can be the same thing. One can still 'go around' the earth if it's a globe, so the 'circular' argument is inconclusive.
If you took a geometry course, you would soon realize a circle is not a globe.
-
I said a circle and a globe CAN be the same thing, from a perception standpoint. For instance, if you look at a globe from the side, it looks like a circle because you can't see the whole thing. If you look up at the sun, it looks like a circle. We only know it's a globe because some astronomer told us. From the naked eye, you'd never know it was a globe.
-
I said a circle and a globe CAN be the same thing, from a perception standpoint. For instance, if you look at a globe from the side, it looks like a circle because you can't see the whole thing. If you look up at the sun, it looks like a circle. We only know it's a globe because some astronomer told us. From the naked eye, you'd never know it was a globe.
From a reality standpoint, a circle is not a globe.
-
Getting back to the original point, the bible verse: "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth". If this is true, then the bible contradicts itself since it says the earth has 4 corners. Of course, the bible can't contradict itself. My point is that 'circle' instead of 'globe' doesn't prove the earth is flat. It might help the argument but it's far from conclusive.
-
Getting back to the original point, the bible verse: "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth". If this is true, then the bible contradicts itself since it says the earth has 4 corners. Of course, the bible can't contradict itself. My point is that 'circle' instead of 'globe' doesn't prove the earth is flat. It might help the argument but it's far from conclusive.
4 Corners. :smile:
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map1_zpsvnsnj2fb.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map1_zpsvnsnj2fb.jpg.html)
-
That picture shows a non-flat earth. ???
-
That picture shows a non-flat earth. ???
I am showing you how an earth which isn't a globe can have 4 corners. :smile:
-
I said a circle and a globe CAN be the same thing, from a perception standpoint. For instance, if you look at a globe from the side, it looks like a circle because you can't see the whole thing. If you look up at the sun, it looks like a circle. We only know it's a globe because some astronomer told us. From the naked eye, you'd never know it was a globe.
You've brought up an interesting point. How can we tell that what looks like a circle from a distance, is really a globe or spherical object?
If by "some astronomer" you could be referring to anyone with simple equipment who knows how to use it.
For example, we can tell that a basketball is a globe when a spotlight moves over it and we can observe the changing direction of the light and the corresponding and consequent changing shadow and highlight on the basketball. The world of fine art made this discovery about 600 years ago, but the flat-earthers didn't get the memo, I guess! We observe this same scenario with the moon and the nearby planets when they change phases, corresponding to the direction to the sun which shines on them.
Flat-earthers would look at the basketball and deny that the spotlight is shining on it, because they do that with the moon. They say that the moon produces its own light, and what we see in the phases of the moon is not due to the obvious direction to the sun, but rather to some mysterious internal light that the moon makes itself (they say this without offering any hint of a proposal for what the internal light system is). So they'd be saying that the basketball must produce its own internal light, somehow, which just happens to appear only on the side where the spotlight shines. And they would say this without mentioning anything about where the basketball's mysterious internal light is coming from, who made it, how it works or what its energy source is.
But they'd call their ridiculous pronouncement "scientific proof the basketball is not a golbe" and they'd quote the Bible as evidence of their "proof."
-
I said a circle and a globe CAN be the same thing, from a perception standpoint. For instance, if you look at a globe from the side, it looks like a circle because you can't see the whole thing. If you look up at the sun, it looks like a circle. We only know it's a globe because some astronomer told us. From the naked eye, you'd never know it was a globe.
You've brought up an interesting point. How can we tell that what looks like a circle from a distance, is really a globe or spherical object?
If by "some astronomer" you could be referring to anyone with simple equipment who knows how to use it.
For example, we can tell that a basketball is a globe when a spotlight moves over it and we can observe the changing direction of the light and the corresponding and consequent changing shadow and highlight on the basketball. The world of fine art made this discovery about 600 years ago, but the flat-earthers didn't get the memo, I guess! We observe this same scenario with the moon and the nearby planets when they change phases, corresponding to the direction to the sun which shines on them.
Flat-earthers would look at the basketball and deny that the spotlight is shining on it, because they do that with the moon. They say that the moon produces its own light, and what we see in the phases of the moon is not due to the obvious direction to the sun, but rather to some mysterious internal light that the moon makes itself (they say this without offering any hint of a proposal for what the internal light system is). So they'd be saying that the basketball must produce its own internal light, somehow, which just happens to appear only on the side where the spotlight shines. And they would say this without mentioning anything about where the basketball's mysterious internal light is coming from, who made it, how it works or what its energy source is.
But they'd call their ridiculous pronouncement "scientific proof the basketball is not a golbe" and they'd quote the Bible as evidence of their "proof."
The earth is not globe shaped; a basketball is globe shaped.
-
Getting back to the original point, the bible verse: "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth". If this is true, then the bible contradicts itself since it says the earth has 4 corners. Of course, the bible can't contradict itself. My point is that 'circle' instead of 'globe' doesn't prove the earth is flat. It might help the argument but it's far from conclusive.
The Bible also refers to the "four QUARTERS" of the earth.
In my opinion, (only my opinion) it could mean that the circle is divided thusly:
This would give both four QUARTERS and four CORNERS.
-
I said a circle and a globe CAN be the same thing, from a perception standpoint. For instance, if you look at a globe from the side, it looks like a circle because you can't see the whole thing. If you look up at the sun, it looks like a circle. We only know it's a globe because some astronomer told us. From the naked eye, you'd never know it was a globe.
You've brought up an interesting point. How can we tell that what looks like a circle from a distance, is really a globe or spherical object?
The earth is not globe shaped; a basketball is globe shaped.
Excuse me while I take a moment to do a face palm, because I CANNOT believe we are having to argue with Neil about whether or not we can tell the difference, geometrically, between a circle and a sphere....
:facepalm:
Ok, I feel better now.
Carry on, everyone!
:wink:
-
The earth is not globe shaped; a basketball is globe shaped.
So then explain why the phases of the moon look precisely the same as the shadowing effect on a suspended basketball.
Or, do you deny that the moon displays any phases?
-
"And he shall set up a standard unto the nations, and shall assemble the fugitives of Israel, and shall gather together the dispersed of Juda from the four quarters of the earth." Isaias 11:12/DRV
In Latin:
"Et levabit signum in nationes, et congregabit profugos Israel, et dispersos Juda colliget a quatuor plagis terrae."
"After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree." Apoc. 7:1/DRV
In Latin:
"Post haec vidi quatuor angelos stantes super quatuor angulos terrae, tenentes quatuor ventos terrae, ne flarent super terram, neque super mare, neque in ullam arborem."
As you can see, the Bible uses the Latin word for quarter (quatuor) when it is using both "quarter" in English and "corner" in English.
Also, the word "plagis" in Latin means "stripe, gash, wound" therefore referring to the four lines dividing the "terrae" or "land, terrain, earth, soil."
-
Or instead of doing all this song and dance trying to figure out the exact literal translation of the bible, we could just do a few simple observations, and see for ourselves that the world is round...
See title of the thread for why this would be reasonable.
-
we could just do a few simple observations, and see for ourselves that the world is round...
A simple observation is to look out your window seat on your next flight.
Or, look out the window in a tall building.
You disbelieve your own eyes, and try to convince yourself you see "curvature." I think that is really weird.
-
I have never stated that I have seen curvature with my own eyes, nor would I, because as a few bits of math can show (and have shown, earlier in this thread), the curvature is not readily detectable with the naked eye.
-
the curvature is not readily detectable with the naked eye.
Egads, the stupidity in your statement is amazing!
If the curvature is "not readily detectable" it is because there IS NO CURVATURE TO BE DETECTED.
-
the curvature is not readily detectable with the naked eye.
Egads, the stupidity in your statement is amazing!
If the curvature is "not readily detectable" it is because there IS NO CURVATURE TO BE DETECTED.
Exactly!
-
Playing devil's advocate here...but the eye was not designed to ascertain distance, geometry, or anything else in the engineering field. The eye's primary purpose is similar to a camera, not a ruler.
-
Yes, yes, I know: This is supposed to be an empirically-oriented topic, not a literary one. But I can't stand idly by when there's so much abuse of Latin in what is a traditional Catholic forum. So some preliminary points might well be in order.
It's not globe, it says "circle."
From the Latin Vulgate <http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/27040.htm>:
DRBO.org seems to be a fine Catholic resource; I've gotten into the habit of using it myself.
But by definition, "Latin Vulgate" is, at best (ummm), needlessly redundant:  The Vulgate Bible contains no English; its motto could be "all Latin--all the time!"  That's because whether used as an adjective or alone as a substantive, "vulgātus, -a, -um" is formally a participle (from the verb "vulgō, -āre"), thus meaning, in effect, "made known" or "spread around". And not only Catholics, but also the established Protestant sects, understand well that spreading the Gospels was a major goal of early Christianity.
Considering the social class(es) with whom Jesus spent the majority of His docuмented time on Earth, the grammatically simplified Latin that becomes obvious when reading the Vulgate Bible probably makes it easy for readers of the Bible to conflate "vulgātus" with "vulgāris, -e", meaning "common" or "ordinary", and "vulgus, -i" (n.!), meaning not only "the multitude(s)", but also "the rabble".
-
It's not globe, it says "circle."
From the  Latin  Vulgate <http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/27040.htm>:
[Isaias Chap. 40][/color]]22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
[22] Qui sedet super gyrum terrae, et habitatores ejus sunt quasi locustae; qui extendit velut nihilum caelos, et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum;
(Colored name of book & number of chapter inserted to clarify URL.)
The Holy Bible shown in English by DRBO.org is a revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible by native-English Bp. Richard Challoner, variously cited as, e.g., Challoner-Douay-Rheims or Douay-Rheims-Challoner, published in a few editions spanning 1749--1752 - , the DRBO.org content on line being specifically from the John Murphy Co. (Baltimore) edition of 1899.
Unless mediaeval Latin - extended the meaning of the word on which we're focusing here, "globe of the earth" would've been Challoner's unique translation, presumably one chosen to emphasize the understanding of geography prevailing among educated British subjects. As chronological perspective, Challoner was consecrated in the year that Vitus Bering & Alexei Chirikov set sail eastward on a voyage of exploration from Russia, which made them the first Europeans to sight the far-N.W. coast of North America (i.e., Alyeska); Challoner died very early in the year in which the Articles of Confederation took effect among 13 colonies of Great Britain in the Western Hemisphere, making them the "United States of America", which was also the year in which Britain lost the war of secession by those colonies (i.e., the surrender of British Gen. Cornwallis at Yorktown, Va.).
Etymology  [edit]  From Ancient Greek ????? ?(gûros)
Pronunciation  [edit]  (Classical) IPA(key): /??y?.rus/
Noun  [edit]  gȳrus m ?(genitive gȳr?); second declension
circle
a circular motion
a circuit, course, ring
The Latin word is gyrum, which comes from gyrus, which means "about"[,]  to "go around, about," to "make a circuit" as in a "circle."
(Colored bracketed comma inserted as punctuation, to indicate my interpretation of ambiguous quoted syntax.)
Your reading comprehension seems poor. Did you miss the Latin? It says gyrum - gyrum does not translate to globe. You see?
Two can play that game: Have you failed to comprehend, from details shown by your own unidentified quoted source, that "g?rus, -i", which is inflected for case, and whose declension is identified, is neither an adverb ("about") nor a verb ("to go" and "to make"), but instead a masculine noun?  And only a noun?
I won't quote the google URL you linked; it accomplished nothing for me (the issue might be that I'm not a member of any google anything). For us speakers of English, the query part of the URL must begin thus: "?hl=en&eotf=0&sl=la&tl=en&q="; this is what worked for me for the verse being debated:
<https://translate.google.com/?hl=en&eotf=0&sl=la&tl=en&q=Qui%20sedet%20super%20gyrum%20terrae,%20et%20habitatores%20ejus%20sunt%20quasi%20locustae;%20qui%20extendit%20velut%20nihilum%20caelos,%20et%20expandit%20eos%20sicut%20tabernaculum%20ad%20inhabitandum;> (manually wrapped URL, because MercuryBoard ceased automagical wrapping after the last '&').
Is [sic]he who sits above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;
Surprisingly good--arguably excellent--results. At first glance, it looked as if google were taking advantage of a Bible-recognition bypass to their usual algorithm for translating Latin, and instead doing a look-up from a database of precompiled translations. Except for the conspicuously flawed first word in the English result: "Is". Google almost seems to have mistaken the relative pronoun "qui, quae, quod" for the identically declined interrogative adjective - .  I'd begin instead with 2 words: "He who" (a result more of applying a lesser rule than of literary art). And shouldn't pronouns for God in English be capitalized?
A rare resort to my copy of the Protestant Bible (which I'd expect google to prefer) mostly supports my suspicion that google used a database look-up:
It is [sic]he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in : [×]
But the 2 translations differ significantly in the initial 5 or 6 words, respectively.
-------
Note +: Challoner was born in England in 1691, had been ordained in 1716, consecrated (as a bishop) in 1741, and died in or near London in 1781&.#160; See Edward Burton 1908: "Richard Challoner". Cath. En., vol. 3.  <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03564a.htm>.
Note *: Because once one includes mediaeval Latin, it must be conceded that meanings do change. A dialect for which I'd love to have a reference source, but don't.
Note #: The interrogative pronoun "quis, quis, quid" is not "qui" in any combination of number or gender.
Note ×: "Pitt Brevier 8vo" n.d. (not necessarily 1611; the K.J."A".V. was revised in the 19th C.), "cuм Privilegio": Cambridge Univ. Press (Gr. Brit.).
-
the curvature is not readily detectable with the naked eye.
Egads, the stupidity in your statement is amazing!
If the curvature is "not readily detectable" it is because there IS NO CURVATURE TO BE DETECTED.
Oooor maybe it's small enough that you can't really tell if it's straight or not? You could, for example, take a look at that one of your pictures I drew a line on. Zoom in a little, and you will clearly see the horizon line bow slightly above the straight line I drew, so yes, it can be nearly impossible to tell.
And before you get all up in arms, I have already stated that you could consider that image inconclusive, given the other factors involved. The point I am making here is that the naked eye is not a good judge of the matter.
On a different note, a question for everyone in this thread. What would it take for you to change your mind?
And don't say nothing would make you change your mind, because in that case we aren't even having a discussion, we are just yelling at our computer screens. There has to be some level of objective evidence that you would consider enough to prove you wrong. Understanding where that point lies would be helpful for the discussion.
-
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
-
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
That argument is copy/pasted all over the internet, and is based entirely on a misunderstanding of what a datum is. That horizontal datum measures 26 feet below sea level. So the canal was dug along a "line" 26 feet below sea level, which curves slightly to follow the datum. It's not really complicated. See the attached image for my 30 second rendition.
Datum is red, marking a distance below (average) sea level. Green stuff is the uneven surface. You dig along the black lines, or something close to that, and suddenly a channel forms.
-
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
That argument is copy/pasted all over the internet, and is based entirely on a misunderstanding of what a datum is. That horizontal datum measures 26 feet below sea level. So the canal was dug along a "line" 26 feet below sea level, which curves slightly to follow the datum. It's not really complicated. See the attached image for my 30 second rendition.
Datum is red, marking a distance below (average) sea level. Green stuff is the uneven surface. You dig along the black lines, or something close to that, and suddenly a channel forms.
The channel was not dug as deep as you are trying to imply by your illustration and this is because the earth is not a globe.
-
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
That argument is copy/pasted all over the internet, and is based entirely on a misunderstanding of what a datum is. That horizontal datum measures 26 feet below sea level. So the canal was dug along a "line" 26 feet below sea level, which curves slightly to follow the datum. It's not really complicated. See the attached image for my 30 second rendition.
Datum is red, marking a distance below (average) sea level. Green stuff is the uneven surface. You dig along the black lines, or something close to that, and suddenly a channel forms.
The channel in your illustration is laughable because it doesn't conform to your sphere. The channel in your illustration is flat (flat earth) and is in not even spherical.
-
Yes, yes, I know: This is supposed to be an empirically-oriented topic, not a literary one. But I can't stand idly by when there's so much abuse of Latin in what is a traditional Catholic forum. So some preliminary points might well be in order.
It's not globe, it says "circle."
From the Latin Vulgate <http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/27040.htm>:
DRBO.org seems to be a fine Catholic resource; I've gotten into the habit of using it myself.
But by definition, "Latin Vulgate" is, at best (ummm), needlessly redundant:  The Vulgate Bible contains no English; its motto could be "all Latin--all the time!"  That's because whether used as an adjective or alone as a substantive, "vulgātus, -a, -um" is formally a participle (from the verb "vulgō, -āre"), thus meaning, in effect, "made known" or "spread around". And not only Catholics, but also the established Protestant sects, understand well that spreading the Gospels was a major goal of early Christianity.
That's what their website, drbo.org, calls it: the LATIN VULGATE BIBLE. If you have a problem with their "redundant" name, take it up with the website owner.
I consider it a good resource, as I am unaware of any other online version of the Douay-Rheims Bible.
I highly doubt I am going to start scanning in pages of my physical Bible for this!
:wink:
-
On a different note, a question for everyone in this thread. What would it take for you to change your mind?
You should probably THINK about this: my mind was already changed.
I thought, like everybody else, that the earth was a ball - because that is what I was told.
However, when I started to examine it, which I had never thought to do before 2010, it all fell apart under scrutiny.
I am certain when I go to my Judgment, Our Lord will let us in on the answer. Until then, there is nothing that could change my mind back to the ball-earth model. All the "space" photos are false because it is not possible to go there. So, all of the attainable physical evidence here on earth so far affirms what the BIBLE SAYS - the earth is a flat plane.
Therefore, it would take some truly extraordinary evidence to get me back to believing it's a ball.
-
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
What need would there be to take the earth's curvature into account when building the Suez Canal?
Do you suppose the canal would have a different shape with or without consideration of the curvature of the earth?
-
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
What need would there be to take the earth's curvature into account when building the Suez Canal?
Do you suppose the canal would have a different shape with or without consideration of the curvature of the earth?
Of course. The canal is not curved.
-
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
What need would there be to take the earth's curvature into account when building the Suez Canal?
Do you suppose the canal would have a different shape with or without consideration of the curvature of the earth?
Of course. The canal is not curved.
Can someone standing at the Mediterranean inlet with a telescope sight a target at the other end of the canal 100 miles away (at the Red Sea exit), in an ideal weather condition?
-
Can someone standing at the Mediterranean inlet with a telescope sight a target at the other end of the canal 100 miles away (at the Red Sea exit), in an ideal weather condition?
It's awwwfully late for me here on the U.S. East Coast to be risking arithmetic to be viewed by people using brains that are few-to-many hours fresher.
But if you can get some crazy billionaire to successfully erect a tower on the order of 14,000 feet (4250 m.) tall, a person standing at ground-level at the entrance of the canal might be able to see the top 300 hundred feet (90 m.).
That's if the telescope optics yield a long enough focal length. I'm approximating the 100/24000 mi. arc as 1.5°. I've ignored accounting for leaning from perpendicular (also 1.5°?) to the meridian tangent, because I doubt that the engineering technology exists to erect any structure to a substantial fraction of that height, and because I'm already too tired to be confident in my memory of high-school geometry & trigonometry. It's past time for sleep mode here.
-
The channel was not dug as deep as you are trying to imply by your illustration and this is because the earth is not a globe.
Do I really need to add a "drawing not to scale" disclaimer? The circle I drew is ~2 inches across on my screen. The 100 mile canal would be 1/40th of an inch, so yes, I drew it larger than what it would actually be if drawn to scale. That should be obvious to anyone.
The channel in your illustration is laughable because it doesn't conform to your sphere. The channel in your illustration is flat (flat earth) and is in not even spherical.
Are you referring to the fact that I didn't curve the bottom of the channel to follow the datum line? If so, yes, I got lazy. Again, I drew this in 30 seconds. If you were actually thinking a bit rather than immediately looking for ways to discredit my arguments as a matter of principle, this would be obvious.
On a different note, a question for everyone in this thread. What would it take for you to change your mind?
You should probably THINK about this: my mind was already changed.
...
Therefore, it would take some truly extraordinary evidence to get me back to believing it's a ball.
What do you consider "truly extraordinary" evidence?
For me, it would be enough if I were to go to the coast and watch a ship fade away into the horizon without sinking beneath it to immediately change my mind. The same goes for any equivalent piece of evidence observed elsewhere (across a large enough lake or something like that).
Such a thing has never been observed. But please, if you have a video of it or even a sequence of photos, share them, and I would happily change my view.
If you are being honest about your search for the truth, the opposite should be enough to convince you as well.
What need would there be to take the earth's curvature into account when building the Suez Canal?
Do you suppose the canal would have a different shape with or without consideration of the curvature of the earth?
Depends on the scale you are looking at. Locally, the difference is minimal enough to be mostly ignored. Across the entire thing, yes, it would be noticeable, and taken into account by the surveyors.
-
From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circuмference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth’s curvature.
-
From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circuмference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth’s curvature.
It's actually just under 30 miles from Washington's Rock to downtown Manhattan. Using this (http://www.cohp.org/local_curvature.html) convenient horizon calculator, at 400 feet of elevation your horizon is ~25 miles out. So it is no surprise that you can see skyscrapers hundreds of feet tall.
Edit to add:
And since you are just copy/pasting arguments direct from here (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html), I will add that the authors shows no picture of the more distant Philadelphia skyline. My 30 second internet search hasn't turned any up, though it was cursory, so I may have missed one. Please share if you find it.
-
My mind is not good with math; I'll just stick to the simple formula.
-
It's awwwfully late for me here on the U.S. East Coast to be risking  arithmetic  math to be viewed by people using brains that are few-to-many hours fresher.
So I'm doing it again. For such an imprudent act, I'm blaming brain circuits fried by listening to radio-broadcast speeches at particular event over the last 3 days, especially 1 before midnight.
But if you can get some crazy billionaire to successfully erect a tower on the order of 14,000 feet (4250 m.) tall, a person standing at ground-level at the entrance of the canal might be able to see the top 300 hundred feet (90 m.).
Which I rounded up from a vaguely recalled actual result in the range 13,600--13,800 ft.  That's almost exactly double the answer calculated by <http://www.cohp.org/local_curvature.html> (with tip of the hat to 'noOneImportant'). So it seems to me that I can save the hypothetical billionaire(s) some serious money.
My approach in my sluggish approximation yesterday was structurally more complicated, but might've been operationally equivalent. I suppose I missed a step, all of which I neither recall nor noted. Maybe I was too tired to notice a missing conversion of diameter to radius; missing a required halving would certainly account for an erroneous result that is almost exactly double a correct one.
The correct answer for the height of the hypothetical miracle of engineering & materials science, topped by an aircraft-warning beacon that's the only part high enough to be visible for 100 miles to a ground-level observer, is approximately 1.3 mi. = 6913 ft.
Yes, not only did I substitute an ideal sphere for the real oblate one, I also played fast & footloose with significant digits; altho' my 'pi' was merely 3.1416, I let the Win-Calculator carry all its trig.-fn. digits (i.e., without rounding) until the end.
-
Still 2-3x the height of the tallest building in the world, so it doesn't change your point really.
On another note, is there a reasonable flat earth explanation for sunrise/sunset out there somewhere? The only one I've been able to find boils down to "perspective", and that's patently ridiculous. I would assume there's a better one if people are serious about this stuff.
-
This is not an "official" FE explanation, but I will try to explain it in my own words, in a way that helps me to visualize it.
I come from an aviation family - pilots, grew up around aircraft, etc.
When you are in a plane, except for ascent and descent, the plane always flies perfectly level.
So, too, does the sun when it travels in its path above the earth - it is perfectly level.
Now, when you are on the ground and you look at an aircraft in the sky that is approaching you from afar off, it will "look" as though it is ascending in the sky, as it comes toward you. However, it is not ascending - it is flying perfectly level. Then, when it gets closer and when it passes over your head, you can see that it is actually flying perfectly level. Finally, as you watch it travel away from you to the other horizon, it will "look" as though it is descending in the sky. However, it is not descending - it is still flying perfectly level.
You can also try this experiment for yourself any day when there are heavy contrails in the sky. You can watch them approach from afar off, the lines looking like they are being painted "upward." But, if you keep watching, you will notice in just a few minutes they are now passing directly overhead and the line appears level. Then, as they move away, the contrail seems to descend. The contrail is just a useful tool for "drawing" the line that your eye cannot perceive in the sky.
The same phenomenon can also be seen in an airshow when the Blue Angels come screaming over the audience's heads at a very low altitude.
I hope that explanation helps you to visualize it, but I think there were also a few videos posted in the thread that illustrate this effect in the sunrise and sunset on a FE model.
-
Still 2-3x the height of the tallest building in the world, so it doesn't change your point really.
On another note, is there a reasonable flat earth explanation for sunrise/sunset out there somewhere? The only one I've been able to find boils down to "perspective", and that's patently ridiculous. I would assume there's a better one if people are serious about this stuff.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif.html)
-
Still 2-3x the height of the tallest building in the world, so it doesn't change your point really.
On another note, is there a reasonable flat earth explanation for sunrise/sunset out there somewhere? The only one I've been able to find boils down to "perspective", and that's patently ridiculous. I would assume there's a better one if people are serious about this stuff.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif.html)
TIE, do you have a sideview animated gif that would show it?
-
Still 2-3x the height of the tallest building in the world, so it doesn't change your point really.
On another note, is there a reasonable flat earth explanation for sunrise/sunset out there somewhere? The only one I've been able to find boils down to "perspective", and that's patently ridiculous. I would assume there's a better one if people are serious about this stuff.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif.html)
TIE, do you have a sideview animated gif that would show it?
Sorry, I don't have a side view of this gif.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flatearth31_zpsuwq6ox5h.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flatearth31_zpsuwq6ox5h.jpg.html)
-
Demonstrating one's "little knowledge" isn't always the proverbially "dangerous thing", but it can still have disadvantages:
"And he shall set up a standard unto the nations, and shall assemble the fugitives of Israel, and shall gather together the dispersed of Juda from the four quarters of the earth." Isaias 11:12/DRV
In Latin:
"Et levabit signum in nationes, et congregabit profugos Israel, et dispersos Juda colliget a quatuor plagis terrae." [Isaias 11:12]
Also, the word "plagis" in Latin means "stripe, gash, wound" therefore referring to the four lines dividing the "terrae" or "land, terrain, earth, soil."
Ummm, not quite. When you realize that you're making a stretch in translation, like the one you began with "therefore" above, it's often time to pause, then lift a dictionary of Latin from a bookshelf.
For starters, the Latin "plaga, -ae" (f.), for which "plagis" is the plural in the dative & ablative cases, is not simply "the word": It's one of those frustrating instances in which there are 3 distinct words in Latin having not only identical spelling, but also identical declension & gender. Yet the 3 words are distinct because they are either cognate with, or derived from, 3 words that do not have identical spelling & declension, i.e.
1.  plāga", meaning "(a noisy) strike" (related to the Latin verb "plango, -ere"), and thus (a) "wound" or "stripe"; it has the same meanings as the Greek word transliteratable as "(hē) plēgē" (a dictionary of classical Greek describes it as especially applicable to beating or fighting with clubs).
3.  plăga", meaning "net made for hunting", but more broadly meaning "trap", e.g., in military or debating strategy.
2.  plăga", literally meaning "flat surface", but more broadly meaning "zone", "district" or "region"; it corresponds to a Greek word transliteratable as "ho plakoûs, -oûntos", meaning "flat cake", from "plaks" ("πλαξ"), meaning anything flat & broad (especially if topographically broad, e.g., the U.S. Great Plains). So it's actually this word numbered 2 (two) in my dictionary, that's the word (among these 3 Latin words) that accounts for the poëtic translation as "quarter" in your DRV.
-------
Note #: If the 3rd letter in the Latin word being debated appears as a box, '?', or something similarly out-of-place, it should've appeared in 1 as 'a-with-macron', and in 2 & 3 as 'a-with-breve' (are any readers still seeing such display lapses in 2016?). Those differences don't count as differences in spelling, per se, and they're often not shown in sources, e.g.: <http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/27011.htm>, that are not dictionaries or grammar books).
-
This is not an "official" FE explanation, but I will try to explain it in my own words, in a way that helps me to visualize it.
...
Except that doesn't work. That's the "perspective" argument, and the sun will never dip below the horizon with that explanation. As the sun gets further away over a flat earth, yes, it would seem to go lower and lower, but no matter how far away you get, you will never see something like this (http://siliconangle.com/files/2016/03/Sunset-1080x675.jpg), for example.
See my quick image below for why. The sun, if it stays at one height, will always be on the thin black line as it gets further away. The earth will always be the green line. Note that the black and green lines are parallel.
Thus, the blue line that extends from the eye to the bottom of the sun can never dip below the green line, no matter how far away the sun gets. So you will never, even if the sun were to be a million miles away, see something like the image I linked above, where half of the sun is hidden behind the horizon.
This is why I referred to the perspective theory as patently ridiculous. It doesn't work.
-
Methinks you're making claims about Latin vocabulary for which it would be to your benefit to identify them as the guesses that they seem to be:
"After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree." Apoc. 7:1/DRV
In Latin:
"Post haec vidi quatuor angelos stantes super quatuor angulos terrae, tenentes quatuor ventos terrae, ne flarent super terram, neque super mare, neque in ullam arborem." [Apoc. 7:1]
As you can see, the Bible uses the Latin word for quarter (quatuor) when it is using both "quarter" in English and "corner" in English.
Your clause with the progressive-tense verb "using" is confusing because that verb doesn't fit the apparent context. Are you claiming that Latin "quatuor" means both English "quarter" and "corner"?
Buuuzzz! 
Latin "quattuor" does not mean "corner". For the English nouns "corner" and "angle", classical Latin uses "angulus, -i" (m.); the verse's "angulos" is the plural of the accusative case.
Nor does Latin "quattuor" mean "quarter", even though they sound very similar [×]. Instead, it's the humble cardinal number 4 (four). Thus it's grammatically an indeclinable adjective, as in quatuor angelos", "quatuor angulos", and "quatuor ventos": "4 angels", "4 corners", and "4 winds".
For the English noun "quarter", classical Latin uses 1 of 2 words (depending on the idea or context):
·  the more general "quārta pars, quārtae partis" (f.), meaning "4th part", from the declinable ordinal number quārtus, -a, um", meaning 4th (fourth); or
·  the less general "quadrans, -antis" (m.) (present-active participle of "quadro, -are"- ), which is properly restricted to land (presumably also sky), money, and some physical measures.
-------
Note *: Being identical in spelling to the present-active participle of a verb that means "to make-or-be square", "quadrans" should have had a literal English adjectival meaning along the lines of "squaring", but instead, it seems limited to the idiomatic meaning given above.
Note ×: Latin is much richer than English in words beginning with 'Q', including numerous polysyllablic tongue-twisters that seem comically complex to Anglophones.
-
This is not an "official" FE explanation, but I will try to explain it in my own words, in a way that helps me to visualize it.
...
Except that doesn't work. That's the "perspective" argument, and the sun will never dip below the horizon with that explanation. As the sun gets further away over a flat earth, yes, it would seem to go lower and lower, but no matter how far away you get, you will never see something like this (http://siliconangle.com/files/2016/03/Sunset-1080x675.jpg), for example.
See my quick image below for why. The sun, if it stays at one height, will always be on the thin black line as it gets further away. The earth will always be the green line. Note that the black and green lines are parallel.
Thus, the blue line that extends from the eye to the bottom of the sun can never dip below the green line, no matter how far away the sun gets. So you will never, even if the sun were to be a million miles away, see something like the image I linked above, where half of the sun is hidden behind the horizon.
This is why I referred to the perspective theory as patently ridiculous. It doesn't work.
Of course it works!
It's called the vanishing point. The black and green lines are parallel which CONVERGE at the vanishing point, i.e. the horizon.
Your personal viewing horizon depends on what objects are obscuring your line of sight. So, if you are standing with a forest only a mile away, the treetops are your effective horizon. If you are standing on the shore of Lake Michigan, the line of the water and the cloud bank about 30 miles away are your horizon. At either distance, the horizon from your perspective is effectivley zero degrees.
So, on your diagram the distance on the "x" axis is dependent upon whatever is obscuring your line of sight. If you were to extend the sun's distance along the x-axis in your illustration that you made, the angle becomes lower and lower as it approaches zero.
Maybe I can find a good FE illustration that illustrates it from a FE site in the morning.
Good night!
-
I know what a vanishing point is. An object above the horizon can still never drop below it....
-
Still 2-3x the height of the tallest building in the world, so it doesn't change your point really.
On another note, is there a reasonable flat earth explanation for sunrise/sunset out there somewhere? The only one I've been able to find boils down to "perspective", and that's patently ridiculous. I would assume there's a better one if people are serious about this stuff.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif.html)
Ok, that is possible, but now the problem with the stars. In the Nt Hemisphere we see the North Star and in the St hemisphere they see the southern star. Both these stars are essential to what is called precession of the equinoxes and its effect on days and years. Explain the precession in the flat earth scenario please?
-
<http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif>.
The illumination of the North-Polar projection Flat Earth by the not-quite-point-source Sun can only work over a shape such as the 1893 inverse toroid of "Professor" Orlando Ferguson, because its central 3-d crest is necessary to block light from the Sun from bleeding over into what corresponds to the opposite hemisphere in the global model. So the Sun must have the circular axis of its movement, on average, over the 3-d trough of the inverse toroid.
In the modern animation, the Moon's relation is fixed as opposition (i.e., what Earthlings see as the full moon). But there's a photo of Ferguson with what appears to be a mechanical prototype based on a clock- , from which I infer that he recognized that the Moon must be on an independently moving arm, not on an arm yoked to the Sun. The independence is necessary to provide the daily change in the time of moonrise relative to sunrise, which was the lunar-month cycle known even to Earth's ancients.
-------
Note +: North-Polar-projection continents glued to a clock face is in the 1st of 5 images (requiring enabled Javascript) <https://picasaweb.google.com/jdgilmanjr/OrlandoFerguson?authkey=Gv1sRgCJqjoa-JsrD6Cg#5967339784985795474>.
-
<http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif>.
But wait!  Do I hear s.j.w. rabble making accusatory shouts of "hemispherists!" or "Northists!"?
[....] but now the problem with the stars. In the N[orthern] Hemisphere we see the North Star and in the S[outhern] hemisphere they see the southern star.
Ah, yes. The North Star can be visualized as a single point-source in the Celestial Dome located over the center of the North-Polar projection Flat Earth. But a single point-source for the star Alpha Crucis- : the brightest in the famous southern constellation Crux, can't fit the model of compass direction implied by replacing a global South Pole (90° south latitude)
- with the outer rim of the Flat Earth. Especially because the "Southern Pointers": Alpha & Beta Centauri, have a 2-d celestial relationship with Crux that's established by centuries of observation for navigation in the southern seas & islands of East & West.
-------
Note *: Never having been south of the Equator myself, I'm risking deferring to the accessibility of Wikipedia, this not being a matter of faith, morals, or nationalistic pride: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross#Use_in_navigation>.
Note #: I assume that the North-Polar projection Flat Earth model defines "southward" as following any radius away from the central North Pole of the Flat Earth, and "eastward" and "westward" as following any circle centered on that North Pole, counterclockwise and clockwise, respectively. A system that I suppose has significant implications for empirical physical laws of electromagnetism[/b].
-
My mind is not good with math; I'll just stick to the simple formula.
In case you think earth is a globe from the statue symbols, think again. Jesus is holding is all of creation because He is outside of it. He holds EVERYTHING in His Hands, not just the earth. That globe represents the entire universe, the dome heaven, the pit of hell with the terra firma flat earth in the center. To suggest that Jesus is only holding the globe is a symbology that is erroneous because it suggests He isn't the Lord of all of creation.
-
My mind is not good with math; I'll just stick to the simple formula.
In case you think earth is a globe from the statue symbols, think again. Jesus is holding is all of creation because He is outside of it. He holds EVERYTHING in His Hands, not just the earth. That globe represents the entire universe, the dome heaven, the pit of hell with the terra firma flat earth in the center. To suggest that Jesus is only holding the globe is a symbology that is erroneous because it suggests He isn't the Lord of all of creation.
I know, I tried to explain this earlier in the thread - that the Infant of Prague statue is NOT the earth as a globe, but that it is the whole of God's Creation. But, I guess Myrna missed that!
I love you pointing out the ERROR!
To suggest that Jesus is only holding the globe is a symbology that is erroneous because it suggests He isn't the Lord of all of creation.
:rahrah:
-
<http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif>.
But wait!  Do I hear s.j.w. rabble making accusatory shouts of "hemispherists!" or "Northists!"?
[....] but now the problem with the stars. In the N[orthern] Hemisphere we see the North Star and in the S[outhern] hemisphere they see the southern star.
Ah, yes. The North Star can be visualized as a single point-source in the Celestial Dome located over the center of the North-Polar projection Flat Earth. But a single point-source for the star Alpha Crucis- : the brightest in the famous southern constellation Crux, can't fit the model of compass direction implied by replacing a global South Pole (90° south latitude)
- with the outer rim of the Flat Earth. Especially because the "Southern Pointers": Alpha & Beta Centauri, have a 2-d celestial relationship with Crux that's established by centuries of observation for navigation in the southern seas & islands of East & West.
-------
Note *: Never having been south of the Equator myself, I'm risking deferring to the accessibility of Wikipedia, this not being a matter of faith, morals, or nationalistic pride: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross#Use_in_navigation>.
Note #: I assume that the North-Polar projection Flat Earth model defines "southward" as following any radius away from the central North Pole of the Flat Earth, and "eastward" and "westward" as following any circle centered on that North Pole, counterclockwise and clockwise, respectively. A system that I suppose has significant implications for empirical physical laws of electromagnetism[/b].
If the earth is flat then both Nt and St pole stars should be visible to all. Your answer above may well satisfy a class of physicists but is not comprehendible to us mere mortals on CIF. Could you tell us again in simple language how only one of these stars can be seen depending on where one lives if we live on a flat earth. A globe at the centre of the universe is the only physical way for this phenomenon.
But again I refer to precession of the equinoxes. This requires a rotation of the earth or the stars once every 32,000 years to complete a rotation. Such rotation requires a round body. I still cannot envisage the flat earth possibility.
-
My mind is not good with math; I'll just stick to the simple formula.
In case you think earth is a globe from the statue symbols, think again. Jesus is holding is all of creation because He is outside of it. He holds EVERYTHING in His Hands, not just the earth. That globe represents the entire universe, the dome heaven, the pit of hell with the terra firma flat earth in the center. To suggest that Jesus is only holding the globe is a symbology that is erroneous because it suggests He isn't the Lord of all of creation.
I know, I tried to explain this earlier in the thread - that the Infant of Prague statue is NOT the earth as a globe, but that it is the whole of God's Creation. But, I guess Myrna missed that!
I love you pointing out the ERROR!
To suggest that Jesus is only holding the globe is a symbology that is erroneous because it suggests He isn't the Lord of all of creation.
:rahrah:
Just for your own information I am not a scientist nor pretend to be one, and yes I missed your pointing out my "erroneous" image.
Does it really matter if I prefer to think of the earth as a globe, are you saying I am damned to believe as I do?
In the meantime I will stick to the Great Minds of the past, and Holy monks such as:
Bede the Venerable
The monk Bede (c. 672–735) wrote in his influential treatise on computus, The Reckoning of Time, that the Earth was round. He explained the unequal length of daylight from "the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe." (De temporum ratione, 32). The large number of surviving manuscripts of The Reckoning of Time, copied to meet the Carolingian requirement that all priests should study the computus, indicates that many, if not most, priests were exposed to the idea of the sphericity of the Earth.[42] Ælfric of Eynsham paraphrased Bede into Old English, saying, "Now the Earth's roundness and the Sun's orbit constitute the obstacle to the day's being equally long in every land."[43]
Bede was lucid about earth's sphericity, writing "We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth's circuмference will represent the figure of a perfect globe... For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides."
I feel as certain as you feel about your own analysis that Bede was of the mind of God.
-
If the earth is flat then both N[orthern] and S[outhern] pole stars should be visible to all.
Indeed they should.
Could you tell us again in simple language how only one of these stars can be seen depending on where one lives if we live on a flat earth.
I can't "tell [you] again", because I haven't made that claim even once. What I told was quite the opposite: It "can't fit the [Flat-Earth] model".
But a single point-source for the star Alpha Crucis - [/s][/color]: the brightest in the famous southern constellation Crux, [i.e., the "Southern Cross",] can't fit the model of compass direction implied by replacing a global South Pole (90° south latitude)
- [/s][/color] with the outer rim of the Flat Earth.
Writing that some verifiable circuмstance "can't fit the model" is an objection to that model.
For a Spherical Earth, each point on the surface of that sphere has a diametrical opposite (i.e., an opposite point determined by a diameter line, thus a line defined as passing through the center of that sphere) traditionally called an antipode (from Greek "αντι" + "πόδεϛ" [**], literally meaning "opposite" + "feet"). The 2 extreme points of modern geographical north vs. south are points called Poles, being the only pair whose diameter line is the same as the axis of rotation for the sphere. Whatever is visible in the sky from any 1 point on the sphere, is blocked from view at its antipode, by the opaque bulk of the Spherical Earth (by definitions), which is the ultimate limit to viewing directions.
For the Flat Earth, there are no antipodes, and in particular, there is no South Pole. Instead, the circular outer rim of the Flat Earth, being farthest from the central point deemed the North Pole, must serve every purpose of the corresponding spherical South Pole. But it plainly cannot! 
Especially because the "Southern Pointers": Alpha & Beta Centauri, have a 2-d celestial relationship with Crux that's established by centuries of observation for navigation in the southern seas & islands of East & West.
The "celestial relationship" alluded to is that a line through the top and bottom stars of the constellation Crux: Gamma and Alpha Crucis, respectively, intersects a perpendicular bisector from the "Southern Pointers" pair, and that intersection defines a geometrical point in the sky that's practically over the spherical South Pole [##].
A celestial fact very compellingly established by those centuries of observation is that Crux can be seen from great southern lands, i.e., Australia, South Africa, and El Cono Sur (South America), and far-southern islands. And it cannot be seen from great northern lands, e.g., Alaska, Canada, and Scandinavia, and far-northern islands. But any place that can see Crux cannot also see the constellation Ursa Minor, which contains the North(-Pole) Star Alpha Ursae Minoris (d.b.a. Polaris) in the same night sky.
If the North Star shines at a point in the Celestial Dome that's directly over the center of a circular--or even square--Flat Earth, then where could exactly 1 instance of Crux be placed in that Dome, so that it's consistent with centuries of observation of Crux from all those southern lands and far-southern seas, hmmm? 
So I'm quite comfortable in concluding that there's no possible model for a Flat Earth that preserves all the geographic relationships and land areas established by centuries of marine navigation and terrestrial surveying, that also preserves the mutually exclusive observability of Crux vs. Ursa Minor, as also established over many centuries. In particular, a Flat Earth in which "south" is modelled as an outer zone completely surrounding an inner circle (with no overlap) whose junction is also a circle deemed the "Equator", fails established requirements for the model.
I have not yet emptied my queue of pending postings objecting to the Flat Earth hypothesis, and that queue seems to be growing. Sigh.
--------
Note ##: Merely "practically over" the South Pole is good enough from the perspective of people who're not venturing beyond 60° south latitude, unless they're responsible for safe navigation in the far-southern seas. That latitude is south of all the temperate continents and their islands, so anyone going beyond it needs to be prepared for the challenges of Antarctic travel or exploration.
Note **: If the letters in the 2 Greek words presented in the syntax "αντι" + "πόδεϛ" appears to readers in 2016 as sequences of boxes, '?'s, or some symbols similarly out-of-place within those double-quote marks, it might be time--arguably waaay past time--to consider updating those readers' computers or browsers, so that they can better accomodate characters in Unicode, e.g., via <http://www.unicode.org/help/display_problems.html>.
-
<http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/180px-SunAnimation1_zpsspk7jpa3.gif>.
But wait!  Do I hear s.j.w. rabble making accusatory shouts of "hemispherists!" or "Northists!"?
[....] but now the problem with the stars. In the N[orthern] Hemisphere we see the North Star and in the S[outhern] hemisphere they see the southern star.
Ah, yes. The North Star can be visualized as a single point-source in the Celestial Dome located over the center of the North-Polar projection Flat Earth. But a single point-source for the star Alpha Crucis- : the brightest in the famous southern constellation Crux, can't fit the model of compass direction implied by replacing a global South Pole (90° south latitude)
- with the outer rim of the Flat Earth. Especially because the "Southern Pointers": Alpha & Beta Centauri, have a 2-d celestial relationship with Crux that's established by centuries of observation for navigation in the southern seas & islands of East & West.
-------
Note *: Never having been south of the Equator myself, I'm risking deferring to the accessibility of Wikipedia, this not being a matter of faith, morals, or nationalistic pride: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross#Use_in_navigation>.
Note #: I assume that the North-Polar projection Flat Earth model defines "southward" as following any radius away from the central North Pole of the Flat Earth, and "eastward" and "westward" as following any circle centered on that North Pole, counterclockwise and clockwise, respectively. A system that I suppose has significant implications for empirical physical laws of electromagnetism[/b].
If the earth is flat then both Nt and St pole stars should be visible to all. Your answer above may well satisfy a class of physicists but is not comprehendible to us mere mortals on CIF. Could you tell us again in simple language how only one of these stars can be seen depending on where one lives if we live on a flat earth. A globe at the centre of the universe is the only physical way for this phenomenon.
But again I refer to precession of the equinoxes. This requires a rotation of the earth or the stars once every 32,000 years to complete a rotation. Such rotation requires a round body. I still cannot envisage the flat earth possibility.
No, the north and south poles would not be visible to all because distance, atmospheric conditions, irregular levels (to include hills, valleys and mountains) on the way to the edge foils that opportunity from ground level. Most stars are visible from most places on earth although there are some not viewable from some places, like the Southern Cross from the North. There are some theories on this, but the globe theory doesn't work with the star motions at all. No need to throw out the flat earth just because we don't have all the answers. Enoch explains much of the behavior of the cosmos, but it is hard to digest. Worth looking into. Continue studying. There is a lot more to know!
-
If the earth is flat then both N[orthern] and S[outhern] pole stars should be visible to all.
Indeed they should.
Could you tell us again in simple language how only one of these stars can be seen depending on where one lives if we live on a flat earth.
I can't "tell [you] again", because I haven't made that claim even once. What I told was quite the opposite: It "can't fit the [Flat-Earth] model".
But a single point-source for the star Alpha Crucis - [/s][/color]: the brightest in the famous southern constellation Crux, [i.e., the "Southern Cross",] can't fit the model of compass direction implied by replacing a global South Pole (90° south latitude)
- [/s][/color] with the outer rim of the Flat Earth.
Writing that some verifiable circuмstance "can't fit the model" is an objection to that model.
For a Spherical Earth, each point on the surface of that sphere has a diametrical opposite (i.e., an opposite point determined by a diameter line, thus a line defined as passing through the center of that sphere) traditionally called an antipode (from Greek "αντι" + "πόδεϛ" [**], literally meaning "opposite" + "feet"). The 2 extreme points of modern geographical north vs. south are points called Poles, being the only pair whose diameter line is the same as the axis of rotation for the sphere. Whatever is visible in the sky from any 1 point on the sphere, is blocked from view at its antipode, by the opaque bulk of the Spherical Earth (by definitions), which is the ultimate limit to viewing directions.
For the Flat Earth, there are no antipodes, and in particular, there is no South Pole. Instead, the circular outer rim of the Flat Earth, being farthest from the central point deemed the North Pole, must serve every purpose of the corresponding spherical South Pole. But it plainly cannot! 
Especially because the "Southern Pointers": Alpha & Beta Centauri, have a 2-d celestial relationship with Crux that's established by centuries of observation for navigation in the southern seas & islands of East & West.
The "celestial relationship" alluded to is that a line through the top and bottom stars of the constellation Crux: Gamma and Alpha Crucis, respectively, intersects a perpendicular bisector from the "Southern Pointers" pair, and that intersection defines a geometrical point in the sky that's practically over the spherical South Pole [##].
A celestial fact very compellingly established by those centuries of observation is that Crux can be seen from great southern lands, i.e., Australia, South Africa, and El Cono Sur (South America), and far-southern islands. And it cannot be seen from great northern lands, e.g., Alaska, Canada, and Scandinavia, and far-northern islands. But any place that can see Crux cannot also see the constellation Ursa Minor, which contains the North(-Pole) Star Alpha Ursae Minoris (d.b.a. Polaris) in the same night sky.
If the North Star shines at a point in the Celestial Dome that's directly over the center of a circular--or even square--Flat Earth, then where could exactly 1 instance of Crux be placed in that Dome, so that it's consistent with centuries of observation of Crux from all those southern lands and far-southern seas, hmmm? 
So I'm quite comfortable in concluding that there's no possible model for a Flat Earth that preserves all the geographic relationships and land areas established by centuries of marine navigation and terrestrial surveying, that also preserves the mutually exclusive observability of Crux vs. Ursa Minor, as also established over many centuries. In particular, a Flat Earth in which "south" is modelled as an outer zone completely surrounding an inner circle (with no overlap) whose junction is also a circle deemed the "Equator", fails established requirements for the model.
I have not yet emptied my queue of pending postings objecting to the Flat Earth hypothesis, and that queue seems to be growing. Sigh.
--------
Note ##: Merely "practically over" the South Pole is good enough from the perspective of people who're not venturing beyond 60° south latitude, unless they're responsible for safe navigation in the far-southern seas. That latitude is south of all the temperate continents and their islands, so anyone going beyond it needs to be prepared for the challenges of Antarctic travel or exploration.
Note **: If the letters in the 2 Greek words presented in the syntax "αντι" + "πόδεϛ" appears to readers in 2016 as sequences of boxes, '?'s, or some symbols similarly out-of-place within those double-quote marks, it might be time--arguably waaay past time--to consider updating those readers' computers or browsers, so that they can better accomodate characters in Unicode, e.g., via <http://www.unicode.org/help/display_problems.html>.
The most serious problem with round earth is the horizon which rises to the eye of the viewer no matter how high you go. This is not possible on a globe as the horizon would have to descend at some point, especially on a 25,000 mi circuмference ball. This NEVER happens. Also, water remains level in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house and the oceans are provably flat. Curved water surfaces are impossible. So dumping the flat earth for a bunch of pseudo science from modern pagan scientists certainly seems rash.
-
There are some theories on this, but the globe theory doesn't work with the star motions at all...
Where are you getting this from? If you are going to make claims like this one, please substantiate them.
Also, water remains level in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house and the oceans are provably flat. Curved water surfaces are impossible. So dumping the flat earth for a bunch of pseudo science from modern pagan scientists certainly seems rash.
This statement is patently ridiculous. How big is your pool? 20 feet across or so? The expected curvature of the earth across a 20 foot distance is 0.0000167 FEET. That's right, about 1.5 ten thousandths of a foot. So you're telling me that you can prove that the surface of your pool curves less than the height of an anthill?
And I am still waiting for an explanation of sunrise/sunset on a flat earth that makes any kind of sense.
-
My mind is not good with math; I'll just stick to the simple formula.
In case you think earth is a globe from the statue symbols, think again. Jesus is holding is all of creation because He is outside of it. He holds EVERYTHING in His Hands, not just the earth. That globe represents the entire universe, the dome heaven, the pit of hell with the terra firma flat earth in the center. To suggest that Jesus is only holding the globe is a symbology that is erroneous because it suggests He isn't the Lord of all of creation.
I know, I tried to explain this earlier in the thread - that the Infant of Prague statue is NOT the earth as a globe, but that it is the whole of God's Creation. But, I guess Myrna missed that!
I love you pointing out the ERROR!
To suggest that Jesus is only holding the globe is a symbology that is erroneous because it suggests He isn't the Lord of all of creation.
:rahrah:
Just for your own information I am not a scientist nor pretend to be one, and yes I missed your pointing out my "erroneous" image.
Does it really matter if I prefer to think of the earth as a globe, are you saying I am damned to believe as I do?
Certainly not.
Nor have I, or anyone on this thread, ever said so.
You are free to believe whatever you like about the shape of the earth.
I do not take offense at those who still want to believe the lies promulgated by occult-practicing "scientists" who originated the idea the earth is a ball and perpetuate it to to this day.
I cannot say the same magnanimity is shown, by you or others, to those of us who have rejected the notion that the earth is a ball.
There are plenty of great minds who have held the earth to be flat.
In fact, the idea of it being a ball is extremely short in the history of time, only significantly taking hold about 500 years ago. All peoples, all cultures, throughout history, have always held the earth to be flat.
-
Curved water surfaces are impossible. So dumping the flat earth for a bunch of pseudo science from modern pagan scientists certainly seems rash.
God bless you, happenby, for "happening by" our little flat earth discussion!
It is a pleasure to see another flat earther join the fray...LOL.
:rahrah:
-
There are some theories on this, but the globe theory doesn't work with the star motions at all...
Where are you getting this from? If you are going to make claims like this one, please substantiate them.
There is much to know on the subject. If the earth is spinning 1050 mph, and orbiting the sun as they say at 67,000 mph and expanding out into the universe at 550,000 mph, the star patterns would change so dramatically from year to year, they could never repeat again. Yet they do.
Also, water remains level in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house and the oceans are provably flat. Curved water surfaces are impossible. So dumping the flat earth for a bunch of pseudo science from modern pagan scientists certainly seems rash.
This statement is patently ridiculous. How big is your pool? 20 feet across or so? The expected curvature of the earth across a 20 foot distance is 0.0000167 FEET. That's right, about 1.5 ten thousandths of a foot. So you're telling me that you can prove that the surface of your pool curves less than the height of an anthill?
Every instance of water surface is always proven level. I mentioned the lake which is 5 miles across. No curve there. When does water curve? Where has the surface of water ever curved?
And I am still waiting for an explanation of sunrise/sunset on a flat earth that makes any kind of sense.
Enoch says the sun travels across the flat earth from windows in the east to the windows in the west. Enoch walked with God. I'm pretty sure he'd know better than the modernist scientists of the day.
-
Curved water surfaces are impossible. So dumping the flat earth for a bunch of pseudo science from modern pagan scientists certainly seems rash.
God bless you, happenby, for "happening by" our little flat earth discussion!
It is a pleasure to see another flat earther join the fray...LOL.
:rahrah:
Thanks! Glad to see there are reasonable people in the Traditional Catholic world sensible enough to respond to the obvious simplicity of God's creation no matter how discombooberating it is at first. I've tossed all evolutionary science indoctrination to the curb. The powers-that-be can no longer hold us hostage to their garbage. The cat's out the bag. Viva Christo Rey!
-
My mind is not good with math; I'll just stick to the simple formula.
In case you think earth is a globe from the statue symbols, think again. Jesus is holding is all of creation because He is outside of it. He holds EVERYTHING in His Hands, not just the earth. That globe represents the entire universe, the dome heaven, the pit of hell with the terra firma flat earth in the center. To suggest that Jesus is only holding the globe is a symbology that is erroneous because it suggests He isn't the Lord of all of creation.
I know, I tried to explain this earlier in the thread - that the Infant of Prague statue is NOT the earth as a globe, but that it is the whole of God's Creation. But, I guess Myrna missed that!
I love you pointing out the ERROR!
To suggest that Jesus is only holding the globe is a symbology that is erroneous because it suggests He isn't the Lord of all of creation.
:rahrah:
Just for your own information I am not a scientist nor pretend to be one, and yes I missed your pointing out my "erroneous" image.
Does it really matter if I prefer to think of the earth as a globe, are you saying I am damned to believe as I do?
Certainly not.
Nor have I, or anyone on this thread, ever said so.
You are free to believe whatever you like about the shape of the earth.
I do not take offense at those who still want to believe the lies promulgated by occult-practicing "scientists" who originated the idea the earth is a ball and perpetuate it to to this day.
I cannot say the same magnanimity is shown, by you or others, to those of us who have rejected the notion that the earth is a ball.
There are plenty of great minds who have held the earth to be flat.
In fact, the idea of it being a ball is extremely short in the history of time, only significantly taking hold about 500 years ago. All peoples, all cultures, throughout history, have always held the earth to be flat.
Thanks so much your sarcasm mixed with Catholic charity overwhelms me.
Could be by the time planet x comes, if that is true, the world will be flat.
My idea of the world is, someday when all is said and done this world will be a shrine for the entire universe. All the souls in Heaven, the Angels will visit the earth forever, because God who chose to become man to take our nature, open the gates of heaven and give us a second chance for eternal life has shed His PRECIOUS BLOOD ON ITS SOIL. He suffered and died on this planet and this planet only, this is the reason why the earth is so special and will be ever so perfect when time is no more.
Apocalypse 21 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and the sea is no more".
My advice for all is to use your energy instead on praying for your souls and souls of others that is the will of God for all of us today. You yourself have said, it makes no difference to the saving of your soul but prayer does. Or at least if you like to debate, debate with the atheist or Protestants regarding the TRUTH THAT WE KNOW, Jesus died for them as well. Convert the Jews with all your spirit. Time is short!
-
If the earth is flat then both N[orthern] and S[outhern] pole stars should be visible to all.
Indeed they should.
Could you tell us again in simple language how only one of these stars can be seen depending on where one lives if we live on a flat earth.
I can't "tell [you] again", because I haven't made that claim even once. What I told was quite the opposite: It "can't fit the [Flat-Earth] model".
But a single point-source for the star Alpha Crucis - [/s][/color]: the brightest in the famous southern constellation Crux, [i.e., the "Southern Cross",] can't fit the model of compass direction implied by replacing a global South Pole (90° south latitude)
- [/s][/color] with the outer rim of the Flat Earth.
Writing that some verifiable circuмstance "can't fit the model" is an objection to that model.
For a Spherical Earth, each point on the surface of that sphere has a diametrical opposite (i.e., an opposite point determined by a diameter line, thus a line defined as passing through the center of that sphere) traditionally called an antipode (from Greek "αντι" + "πόδεϛ" [**], literally meaning "opposite" + "feet"). The 2 extreme points of modern geographical north vs. south are points called Poles, being the only pair whose diameter line is the same as the axis of rotation for the sphere. Whatever is visible in the sky from any 1 point on the sphere, is blocked from view at its antipode, by the opaque bulk of the Spherical Earth (by definitions), which is the ultimate limit to viewing directions.
For the Flat Earth, there are no antipodes, and in particular, there is no South Pole. Instead, the circular outer rim of the Flat Earth, being farthest from the central point deemed the North Pole, must serve every purpose of the corresponding spherical South Pole. But it plainly cannot! 
Especially because the "Southern Pointers": Alpha & Beta Centauri, have a 2-d celestial relationship with Crux that's established by centuries of observation for navigation in the southern seas & islands of East & West.
The "celestial relationship" alluded to is that a line through the top and bottom stars of the constellation Crux: Gamma and Alpha Crucis, respectively, intersects a perpendicular bisector from the "Southern Pointers" pair, and that intersection defines a geometrical point in the sky that's practically over the spherical South Pole [##].
A celestial fact very compellingly established by those centuries of observation is that Crux can be seen from great southern lands, i.e., Australia, South Africa, and El Cono Sur (South America), and far-southern islands. And it cannot be seen from great northern lands, e.g., Alaska, Canada, and Scandinavia, and far-northern islands. But any place that can see Crux cannot also see the constellation Ursa Minor, which contains the North(-Pole) Star Alpha Ursae Minoris (d.b.a. Polaris) in the same night sky.
If the North Star shines at a point in the Celestial Dome that's directly over the center of a circular--or even square--Flat Earth, then where could exactly 1 instance of Crux be placed in that Dome, so that it's consistent with centuries of observation of Crux from all those southern lands and far-southern seas, hmmm? 
So I'm quite comfortable in concluding that there's no possible model for a Flat Earth that preserves all the geographic relationships and land areas established by centuries of marine navigation and terrestrial surveying, that also preserves the mutually exclusive observability of Crux vs. Ursa Minor, as also established over many centuries. In particular, a Flat Earth in which "south" is modelled as an outer zone completely surrounding an inner circle (with no overlap) whose junction is also a circle deemed the "Equator", fails established requirements for the model.
I have not yet emptied my queue of pending postings objecting to the Flat Earth hypothesis, and that queue seems to be growing. Sigh.
--------
Note ##: Merely "practically over" the South Pole is good enough from the perspective of people who're not venturing beyond 60° south latitude, unless they're responsible for safe navigation in the far-southern seas. That latitude is south of all the temperate continents and their islands, so anyone going beyond it needs to be prepared for the challenges of Antarctic travel or exploration.
Note **: If the letters in the 2 Greek words presented in the syntax "αντι" + "πόδεϛ" appears to readers in 2016 as sequences of boxes, '?'s, or some symbols similarly out-of-place within those double-quote marks, it might be time--arguably waaay past time--to consider updating those readers' computers or browsers, so that they can better accomodate characters in Unicode, e.g., via <http://www.unicode.org/help/display_problems.html>.
The most serious problem with round earth is the horizon which rises to the eye of the viewer no matter how high you go. This is not possible on a globe as the horizon would have to descend at some point, especially on a 25,000 mi circuмference ball. This NEVER happens. Also, water remains level in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house and the oceans are provably flat. Curved water surfaces are impossible. So dumping the flat earth for a bunch of pseudo science from modern pagan scientists certainly seems rash.
Sorry AlligatorDicax if I misunderstood your position. happenby, it is getting confusing who is for a flat earth and who is not. It seems then that the absence of the two stars that are essential for the precession of the equinoxes are a problem for the flat-earth theory, if not the falsification of that theory.
-
Sorry AlligatorDicax if I misunderstood your position.
Ah, yes. That you did. But part of the blame is arguably mine:
· My postings thus far that mentioned "Professor" Orlando Ferguson might have seemed like suggested improvements to support his Flat-Earth model; or
· My correction of mistaken Latin by (an) advocate(s) of the Flat Earth might've caused a reader to infer that I was trying to eliminate errors from the Latin-depedent arguments, so as to strengthen her (their?) position.
Either way, apology accepted (setting aside my fervent wish that you would not quote my entire longish posting just to add a single line in response, even when that response is an apology).
-
There are some theories on this, but the globe theory doesn't work with the star motions at all...
Where are you getting this from? If you are going to make claims like this one, please substantiate them.
There is much to know on the subject. If the earth is spinning 1050 mph, and orbiting the sun as they say at 67,000 mph and expanding out into the universe at 550,000 mph, the star patterns would change so dramatically from year to year, they could never repeat again. Yet they do.
Also, water remains level in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house and the oceans are provably flat. Curved water surfaces are impossible. So dumping the flat earth for a bunch of pseudo science from modern pagan scientists certainly seems rash.
This statement is patently ridiculous. How big is your pool? 20 feet across or so? The expected curvature of the earth across a 20 foot distance is 0.0000167 FEET. That's right, about 1.5 ten thousandths of a foot. So you're telling me that you can prove that the surface of your pool curves less than the height of an anthill?
Every instance of water surface is always proven level. I mentioned the lake which is 5 miles across. No curve there. When does water curve? Where has the surface of water ever curved?
And I am still waiting for an explanation of sunrise/sunset on a flat earth that makes any kind of sense.
Enoch says the sun travels across the flat earth from windows in the east to the windows in the west. Enoch walked with God. I'm pretty sure he'd know better than the modernist scientists of the day.
Way to completely ignore getting called out for making blatantly false claims in your previous post.
-
'happenby', it is getting confusing who is for a flat earth and who is not.
Ummm, maybe "some of the people, some of the time". We need to keep in mind that in a topic that's still active after passing 460 postings, it's not necessarily all its participants who are interested in debating a specific position.
I offer that general reminder because of an insight that occurred to me today: 'happen-by' is really outstanding as a disingenuous on-line nickname for a troll.
-
'happenby', it is getting confusing who is for a flat earth and who is not.
Ummm, maybe "some of the people, some of the time". We need to keep in mind that in a topic that's still active after passing 460 postings, it's not necessarily all its participants who are interested in debating a specific position.
I offer that general reminder because of an insight that occurred to me today: 'happen-by' is really outstanding as a disingenuous on-line nickname for a troll.
Nice try. Sticks and stones and name calling happen to be the mo of trolls. The flat geocentric earth is the Catholic position, heliocentrism is a massive pagan lie. It is inherent in the theories themselves where the truth is. Missing the truth is another telling feature whether or not you think that begs the question. Framing wordy questions in a lot of technical mumbo jumbo rather than just posing a simple position or proof is also telling. That's 3 for 3 for you on the troll poll.
-
There are some theories on this, but the globe theory doesn't work with the star motions at all...
Where are you getting this from? If you are going to make claims like this one, please substantiate them.
There is much to know on the subject. If the earth is spinning 1050 mph, and orbiting the sun as they say at 67,000 mph and expanding out into the universe at 550,000 mph, the star patterns would change so dramatically from year to year, they could never repeat again. Yet they do.
Also, water remains level in my glass, in my pool, in the lake behind my house and the oceans are provably flat. Curved water surfaces are impossible. So dumping the flat earth for a bunch of pseudo science from modern pagan scientists certainly seems rash.
This statement is patently ridiculous. How big is your pool? 20 feet across or so? The expected curvature of the earth across a 20 foot distance is 0.0000167 FEET. That's right, about 1.5 ten thousandths of a foot. So you're telling me that you can prove that the surface of your pool curves less than the height of an anthill?
Every instance of water surface is always proven level. I mentioned the lake which is 5 miles across. No curve there. When does water curve? Where has the surface of water ever curved?
And I am still waiting for an explanation of sunrise/sunset on a flat earth that makes any kind of sense.
Enoch says the sun travels across the flat earth from windows in the east to the windows in the west. Enoch walked with God. I'm pretty sure he'd know better than the modernist scientists of the day.
Way to completely ignore getting called out for making blatantly false claims in your previous post.
Shall I send you videos? You aren't reading my texts anyway, accusing me of all sorts of stuff because your model is pagan trash. If you really wanted to learn, I will post them, but it seems you'd rather pontificate rather than listen.
Prove I've made blatantly false claims. You can't. Watch...you'll just get snotty again and sneer. Humility is an ability to recognize the truth and is measured by your ability to learn. Treating something with scorn before you know intimately all sides is telling indeed.
-
Prove I've made blatantly false claims. You can't. Watch...you'll just get snotty again and sneer. Humility is an ability to recognize the truth and is measured by your ability to learn. Treating something with scorn before you know intimately all sides is telling indeed.
You said the water in your pool is "provably flat". I clearly explained that this is impossible, since its curvature should be less than an anthill's worth of height.
I also pointed out how the flat earth model has no reasonable explanation for sunset.
I could also point out that merely going to a coast allows you to easily sea curvature over the horizon, but for some reason flat-earthers like to ignore that detail.
-
It's interesting to me that the Catholic ball-earth believers on this thread continue to sidestep the Biblical question as it relates to the flat earth.
I wonder if Neil, Myrna, Alligator, cassini, nooneimportant, et.al., also believe in evolution?
In other words, if you as a Catholic, believe the Bible to be the LITERAL and INERRANT Word of God, and you therefore believe in the literal Creation account in Genesis, why would you disbelieve the Bible when it comes to the flat earth?
It makes no sense. Theologically, it MAKES NO SENSE.
-
I also pointed out how the flat earth model has no reasonable explanation for sunset.
Not true.
It's been shown to you in pictures and videos and diagrams, how it works on the FE model.
It has been explained to you in layman's terms.
It really isn't very hard to grasp.
You are standing in a position of malicious, willful ignorance against the truth.
Don't blame the half-dozen fellow Catholic messengers who are trying to help you understand it.
-
Humility is an ability to recognize the truth and is measured by your ability to learn. Treating something with scorn before you know intimately all sides is telling indeed.
Amen, sister!
You have to truly have a humble heart when it comes to flat earth.
You have to be willing withstand a level of scorn that most people are never subjected to in their whole lives. Even from fellow Catholics.
-
The flat geocentric earth is the Catholic position, heliocentrism is a massive pagan lie.
TRUTH
-
Can anyone point to any traditional Catholic priests or Bishops who believe that the earth is flat? I think it would be interesting to read what they have to say about this issue if there are any.
-
Prove I've made blatantly false claims. You can't. Watch...you'll just get snotty again and sneer. Humility is an ability to recognize the truth and is measured by your ability to learn. Treating something with scorn before you know intimately all sides is telling indeed.
You said the water in your pool is "provably flat". I clearly explained that this is impossible, since its curvature should be less than an anthill's worth of height.
Don't chump me. Everyone knows the surface of water is flat and this anthill's worth of fake is not going to fool anyone but the weak-minded. Prove that water curves please. Against all scientific and actual measure otherwise. You cannot. The surface of water DOES NOT CURVE! Ever.
I also pointed out how the flat earth model has no reasonable explanation for sunset.
That is not true but a junior layman's jump to a conclusion. It would be far better to admit you don't understand yet.
I could also point out that merely going to a coast allows you to easily sea curvature over the horizon, but for some reason flat-earthers like to ignore that detail.
Ha ha! Oh really? Never in all the experiments done is there proof for a curve at the coast. Please do show! All proofs, like boats supposedly disappearing over the horizon have been proven false when a simple camera with zoom is employed showing the boat doesn't disappear, but simply becomes obscured. Do you live by the ocean? Have you looked at the flatness of the sea? Curvature has never been observed...EVER. Do show where it has been observed as I so much want to learn of it!
-
Ha ha! Oh really? Never in all the experiments done is there proof for a curve at the coast. Please do show! All proofs, like boats supposedly disappearing over the horizon have been proven false when a simple camera with zoom is employed showing the boat doesn't disappear, but simply becomes obscured. Do you live by the ocean? Have you looked at the flatness of the sea? Curvature has never been observed...EVER. Do show where it has been observed as I so much want to learn of it!
The experiments have been around since the ancient greeks, yet for some reason the willfully ignorant continue to ignore them. I posted a video a few pages back of some Scottish guy clearly demonstrating it.
Again, you took my counter-argument about your pool claim and ignored it. Simply saying "IT DOESN'T CURVE" does not make it so.
I'll pose to you the same question I posed to everyone else a few pages before you showed up. What piece of evidence would make you change your mind if you saw it?
The flat geocentric earth is the Catholic position, heliocentrism is a massive pagan lie.
TRUTH
It also has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I also pointed out how the flat earth model has no reasonable explanation for sunset.
Not true.
It's been shown to you in pictures and videos and diagrams, how it works on the FE model.
It has been explained to you in layman's terms.
It really isn't very hard to grasp.
You are standing in a position of malicious, willful ignorance against the truth.
Don't blame the half-dozen fellow Catholic messengers who are trying to help you understand it.
Your argument boiled down to 'perspective', which has already been shown not to work. Perspective doesn't make an object above the plane drop below it, ever. That's basic geometry.
-
Perspective doesn't make an object above the plane drop below it, ever. That's basic geometry.
The "object" in question, i.e. the sun, never literally drops below the plane - no one ever said that.
Your ability to see said "object," i.e. the sun, disappears below your horizon line due to perspective.
You are being intentionally obtuse in refusing to acknowledge this fact, which is provably true with ANY moving object above you at a horizon of ANY distance from your view.
-
The flat geocentric earth is the Catholic position, heliocentrism is a massive pagan lie.
TRUTH
It also has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
It (the Bible) has EVERYTHING to do with the question at hand.
Your refusal to acknowledge it shows your weakness. You probably believe in evolution too!
-
You clearly don't know how perspective works. I feel like I am talking at a wall. Probably a good sign I should just give up on this thread and go do something productive with the rest of my Sunday.
-
Do you live by the ocean? Have you looked at the flatness of the sea? Curvature has never been observed...EVER. Do show where it has been observed as I so much want to learn of it![/color]
NoOneImportant cannot show us any pictures of the "curved" sea because they do not exist.
:shocked:
-
Ha ha! Oh really? Never in all the experiments done is there proof for a curve at the coast. Please do show! All proofs, like boats supposedly disappearing over the horizon have been proven false when a simple camera with zoom is employed showing the boat doesn't disappear, but simply becomes obscured. Do you live by the ocean? Have you looked at the flatness of the sea? Curvature has never been observed...EVER. Do show where it has been observed as I so much want to learn of it!
The experiments have been around since the ancient greeks, yet for some reason the willfully ignorant continue to ignore them. I posted a video a few pages back of some Scottish guy clearly demonstrating it.
So you say. Where are these experiments? I got experiments. But I can see you do not want to learn.
Again, you took my counter-argument about your pool claim and ignored it. Simply saying "IT DOESN'T CURVE" does not make it so.
Sir. Science has long held water surface doesn't curve. My experience backs that up. Everyone but you seems to know it. Your words do not prove otherwise. You can blather, but you can't change facts.
I'll pose to you the same question I posed to everyone else a few pages before you showed up. What piece of evidence would make you change your mind if you saw it?
Sorry, you cannot prove it is a ball. I've seen every video on round and ball earth, sat through classes, endured lectures of every type. There is ZERO proof of round moving earth because it doesn't exist. IF you got it, do deliver. I'm excited to see what I could not otherwise discover in years of research.
The flat geocentric earth is the Catholic position, heliocentrism is a massive pagan lie.
TRUTH
It also has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Now now. You really do have to go back to the drawing board, don't you? I have a three minute video you will have to prove you want to observe and learn from, or I'll just hold it. I'm not casting my pearls before, heh...well, you know.
Do swallow your pride and plan to learn. It really is very interesting and brings Catholic Faith to even greater life!
I also pointed out how the flat earth model has no reasonable explanation for sunset.
Not true.
It's been shown to you in pictures and videos and diagrams, how it works on the FE model.
It has been explained to you in layman's terms.
It really isn't very hard to grasp.
You are standing in a position of malicious, willful ignorance against the truth.
Don't blame the half-dozen fellow Catholic messengers who are trying to help you understand it.
Your argument boiled down to 'perspective', which has already been shown not to work. Perspective doesn't make an object above the plane drop below it, ever. That's basic geometry.
-
The Flat Earth The True Law of Perspective - reupload - much better resolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx7nhnbDoHI
-
The flat geocentric earth is the Catholic position, heliocentrism is a massive pagan lie.
Heliocentrism = anti-catholic. TRUE
Geocentrism = catholic. TRUE
Flat earth Geocentrism = catholic. as yet, unproven THEORY!!
I'm all for challenging our modern and pagan worldview, but to say that the 'flat earth' is THE CATHOLIC POSITION is just not true. It's a theory. And if y'all keep proclaiming that it's a dogmatic truth, you're like bizzaro-Galileo - claiming a scientific theory is fact.
Maybe it is a fact? Maybe there is a scientist out there that can explain it? But y'all haven't come close on this thread, and that's fine. At least admit your limitations.
-
The flat geocentric earth is the Catholic position, heliocentrism is a massive pagan lie.
Heliocentrism = anti-catholic. TRUE
Geocentrism = catholic. TRUE
Flat earth Geocentrism = catholic. as yet, unproven THEORY!!
I'm all for challenging our modern and pagan worldview, but to say that the 'flat earth' is THE CATHOLIC POSITION is just not true. It's a theory. And if y'all keep proclaiming that it's a dogmatic truth, you're like bizzaro-Galileo - claiming a scientific theory is fact.
Maybe it is a fact? Maybe there is a scientist out there that can explain it? But y'all haven't come close on this thread, and that's fine. At least admit your limitations.
The Biblical account in Genesis is of the flat earth.
-
The flat geocentric earth is the Catholic position, heliocentrism is a massive pagan lie.
Heliocentrism = anti-catholic. TRUE
Geocentrism = catholic. TRUE
Flat earth Geocentrism = catholic. as yet, unproven THEORY!!
I'm all for challenging our modern and pagan worldview, but to say that the 'flat earth' is THE CATHOLIC POSITION is just not true. It's a theory. And if y'all keep proclaiming that it's a dogmatic truth, you're like bizzaro-Galileo - claiming a scientific theory is fact.
Maybe it is a fact? Maybe there is a scientist out there that can explain it? But y'all haven't come close on this thread, and that's fine. At least admit your limitations.
The fact the earth isn't a globe has already been proven to be a fact. The horizon line has never shown to have any curvature to it an always rises to the eye level of the observer no matter how high above sea level a person is. This would in no way be able to happen unless the earth was isn't a globe.
-
Do swallow your pride and plan to learn.
Humility is an ability to recognize the truth and is measured by your ability to learn.
Not bad advice!  Seeing as how 'happenby' is a newbie on CathInfo, not yet having reached her 5th full day here, it would be most charitable to wonder if she is unaware that an increasingly common characteristic of her style of posting, has been considered "very bad form" for several decades, that being specifically her abuse of quote boxes, i.e.: Participating in a debate on an internet bulletin-board by inserting her own words into a quote box that encloses words not originally written by herself, but instead by anyone else. Even more so when the other writer is her opponent in the debate.
It's "bad form"[×], even without reference to religion:
· just plain rude to members posting, and
· quickly confusing to readers.
From a Catholic perspective, falsely attaching 1 person's member-name to words that he or she never wrote, but that are nevertheless readable by anyone with access to the Internet, should be recognized as the sin "false witness", in varying degrees. In some instances, from a lawyerly perspective, it might be recognized as the "damage to reputation" formally known as libel.
As examples of how such insertions quickly lead to confusion about authorship of specific words, readers need look no farther than this same topic. First, excerpts as quote boxes would display the original words words of their original writer 'noOneImportant':
The experiments have been around since the ancient greeks, yet for some reason the willfully ignorant continue to ignore them. I posted a video a few pages back of some Scottish guy clearly demonstrating it.
Again, you took my counter-argument about your pool claim and ignored it. Simply saying "IT DOESN'T CURVE" does not make it so.
And
It also has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Both above from <http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=470&num=10#p8>
Then the excerpts as quote boxes would display them after being modified in-place by this newbie or troll 'happenby':
It also has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Now now. You really do have to go back to the drawing board, don't you? I have a three minute video you will have to prove you want to observe and learn from, or I'll just hold it. I'm not casting my pearls before, heh...well, you know.
Do swallow your pride and plan to learn. It really is very interesting and brings Catholic Faith to even greater life!
And
The experiments have been around since the ancient greeks, yet for some reason the willfully ignorant continue to ignore them. I posted a video a few pages back of some Scottish guy clearly demonstrating it.
So you say. Where are these experiments? I got experiments. But I can see you do not want to learn.
Again, you took my counter-argument about your pool claim and ignored it. Simply saying "IT DOESN'T CURVE" does not make it so.
Sir. Science has long held water surface doesn't curve. My experience backs that up. Everyone but you seems to know it. Your words do not prove otherwise. You can blather, but you can't change facts.
Both above from <http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=480&num=10#p3>
Colors of text quoted above were modified by A.D. (i.e., mē) from the ordinary black and unremarkable dark-blue inserted by the newbie or troll, to purplish and cyanish-blue, respectively, to more visibly distinguish the insertions. Because otherwise, readers would need to make a tedious review of the topic to determine their true origin.
It's important to recognize that colors of text are not preserved in quoted text (unless the person presenting the quote-boxes makes the extra effort to present colors, as I did above), so quoting discards not only the colors, but also the distinctions that they initially provided, e.g.: the blue text by 'happenby' (Jul 31, 2016, 8:29 pm), and the first time it's quoted, by 'mw2016' (Jul 31, 2016, 8:57 pm), in whose reply the quoting appears thus:
Do you live by the ocean? Have you looked at the flatness of the sea? Curvature has never been observed...EVER. Do show where it has been observed as I so much want to learn of it![/color]
<http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=480&num=10#p2>. Which is also an example of sealing the naïve or fraudulent fouling of the record of the topic, by making words actually written by 'happenby' henceforth appear to have been written by 'noOneImportant'.
Anyone who can't figure out how to use CathInfo's- 'quoting' features without garbling or otherwise fouling the words of their fellow CathInfo members should exhibit enough consideration for other memebers and readers to limit themselves to those features they can figure out, as confirmed by frequent use of the 'Preview' button.
-------
Note ×: Among the few exceptions are brief insertions that are neutral to the debate or nonsubstantive (e.g., expansions of abbreviations or clarifications of dates), but only when the inserter makes careful use of long-established edit-signifying syntax (e.g., enclosing brackets).
Note *: Technically MercuryBoard's feature, but quite possibly enhanced by Matthew. Yes, I know I'm neither the owner nor moderator here.
-
It's "bad form"[×], even without reference to religion:
· just plain rude to members posting, and
· quickly confusing to readers.
From a Catholic perspective, falsely attaching 1 person's member-name to words that he or she never wrote, but that are nevertheless readable by anyone with access to the Internet, should be recognized as the sin "false witness", in varying degrees. In some instances, from a lawyerly perspective, it might be recognized as the "damage to reputation" formally known as libel.
IMO, it is bad form to give a smackdown about board etiquette to a noob.
It isn't really germane to the subject, now is it?
And to suggest it is sinful is really quite silly, IMO.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled FLAT EARTH program....
-
(http://null)
The Flat Earth The True Law of Perspective - reupload - much better resolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx7nhnbDoHI
That is a remarkable piece of mental gymnastics. The following image sums it up nicely:
(http://i.imgur.com/lnhRnSN.png)
That is so far removed from reality I don't even know how to begin to describe it. Why is the earth a ramp that then flattens out at some arbitrary point? Does light turn at a sharp angle when it reaches that point?
All this video demonstrates is that it was made by a person that either completely misunderstands how perspective works, or is so bound and determined to fit reality to their pre-existing conceptions that they invented a law of perspective were light arbitrarily turns at sharp angles when it's convenient.
-
There are 50 pages to this thread and I don't feel like digging so I'll just post some major issues I notice in regards to the assertion of a flat earth. One, if the earth is flat wouldn't all the water fall of the edge? Also where would the edge be? If someone can sail across the Atlantic and someone can sail across the Pacific that would mean that the edge isn't the ocean. So then it would have to be on land. So somewhere in the midwest of USA and the midwest of China? But I know for a fact that there isn't the edge of the world in the USA midwest so where is the edge?
-
There are 50 pages to this thread and I don't feel like digging so I'll just post some major issues I notice in regards to the assertion of a flat earth. One, if the earth is flat wouldn't all the water fall of the edge? Also where would the edge be? If someone can sail across the Atlantic and someone can sail across the Pacific that would mean that the edge isn't the ocean. So then it would have to be on land. So somewhere in the midwest of USA and the midwest of China? But I know for a fact that there isn't the edge of the world in the USA midwest so where is the edge?
It's a flat disc - Antarctica is the edge. 360 degrees.
-
x
-
x
-
The flat geocentric earth is the Catholic position, heliocentrism is a massive pagan lie.
Heliocentrism = anti-catholic. TRUE
Geocentrism = catholic. TRUE
Flat earth Geocentrism = catholic. as yet, unproven THEORY!!
I'm all for challenging our modern and pagan worldview, but to say that the 'flat earth' is THE CATHOLIC POSITION is just not true. It's a theory. And if y'all keep proclaiming that it's a dogmatic truth, you're like bizzaro-Galileo - claiming a scientific theory is fact.
Maybe it is a fact? Maybe there is a scientist out there that can explain it? But y'all haven't come close on this thread, and that's fine. At least admit your limitations.
At a great disadvantage for lack of equipment to verify, we do have terrible limitations. However, geocentricism has always included flat earth. Only since NASA and this century have ppl continued the false notion that earth is a globe hanging in space. The notion is so absurd, who could examine it with any criticism and still hold it? What makes the water curve? What makes it stay on the ball? Why can't curvature ever be demonstrated in the real world? Why do railroad engineers lay track never allowing for earth curve? Why did NASA fake all the earth spinning videos? Why the all the CGI trickery with pasted on globes to moon shots proven added with Photo Shop? Why fake moon landings? Why is NASA bleeding us dry while providing nothing but fake pictures of space? Why is NASA promoting evolution using fake globe pictures, promoting atheism, millions year old earth and the Big Bang?
The following is not proof, but it is something to think about...
Isn't a level foundation naturally more reasonable?
These are all to greater or less degree dishonest in their approach...
Curve balls
Grading on the curve
Circular thinking
Relative thinking
Relativity
Relativism
Modernism
Talking in circles
Round about (out of your way)
As compared to:
Level headed
Level playing field
On the level
Leveled out
There is nothing to fear in considering the legitimacy of a flat earth. We do not have all the answers, for sure. But one ought not dismiss this out of hand without checking it in regards to every aspect of life and Church. Foundation is critical.
-
Why did NASA fake all the earth spinning videos? Why the all the CGI trickery with pasted on globes to moon shots proven added with Photo Shop? Why fake moon landings? Why is NASA bleeding us dry while providing nothing but fake pictures of space? Why is NASA promoting evolution using fake globe pictures, promoting atheism, millions year old earth and the Big Bang?
Agreed.
The existence of NASA alone should give Catholics pause. We've not been to space, it can't be done.
What are they doing with all those billions??
-
I wonder if CM believed in a flat earth. Does Richard Ibranyi believe in a flat earth?
-
I just found out by reading his website that Ibranyi believes in geocentrism but not in a flat earth.
-
I just found out by reading his website that Ibranyi believes in geocentrism but not in a flat earth.
Ibranyi is a lunatic who doesn't believe there's been a pope in 800 years. The fact that he DOESN'T believe in a flat earth is truly shocking.
-
I wonder if CM believed in a flat earth. Does Richard Ibranyi believe in a flat earth?
Who are they?
-
Flat Earth is the Most Important Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wznf3k57fA
-
I wonder if CM believed in a flat earth. Does Richard Ibranyi believe in a flat earth?
Who are they?
They are both radical sedevacantists who reject more Popes than normal sedevacantists. CM used to be a poster here but was banned. CM stands for "Catholic Martyr". I forget how many Popes he condemned but he was generally a rigorist, condemning BOB and BOD, NFP, and other things. Richard Ibranyi is the most radical sedevacantist I know of. He rejects all of the Popes for almost a thousand years and talks about canonized saints like St. Thomas Aquinas roasting in hell. He is also an extreme rigorist. He has a website you can find if you google his name.
-
I wonder if CM believed in a flat earth. Does Richard Ibranyi believe in a flat earth?
Who are they?
They are both radical sedevacantists who reject more Popes than normal sedevacantists. CM used to be a poster here but was banned. CM stands for "Catholic Martyr". I forget how many Popes he condemned but he was generally a rigorist, condemning BOB and BOD, NFP, and other things. Richard Ibranyi is the most radical sedevacantist I know of. He rejects all of the Popes for almost a thousand years and talks about canonized saints like St. Thomas Aquinas roasting in hell. He is also an extreme rigorist. He has a website you can find if you google his name.
His website is called "John the Baptist dot us" (a misnomer if there ever was one)
-
I wonder if CM believed in a flat earth. Does Richard Ibranyi believe in a flat earth?
Who are they?
They are both radical sedevacantists who reject more Popes than normal sedevacantists. CM used to be a poster here but was banned. CM stands for "Catholic Martyr". I forget how many Popes he condemned but he was generally a rigorist, condemning BOB and BOD, NFP, and other things. Richard Ibranyi is the most radical sedevacantist I know of. He rejects all of the Popes for almost a thousand years and talks about canonized saints like St. Thomas Aquinas roasting in hell. He is also an extreme rigorist. He has a website you can find if you google his name.
His website is called "John the Baptist dot us" (a misnomer if there ever was one)
Sedevacantism is crazy wrong about popes. But they are right about bod, I hate to admit.
-
I wonder if CM believed in a flat earth. Does Richard Ibranyi believe in a flat earth?
Who are they?
They are both radical sedevacantists who reject more Popes than normal sedevacantists. CM used to be a poster here but was banned. CM stands for "Catholic Martyr". I forget how many Popes he condemned but he was generally a rigorist, condemning BOB and BOD, NFP, and other things. Richard Ibranyi is the most radical sedevacantist I know of. He rejects all of the Popes for almost a thousand years and talks about canonized saints like St. Thomas Aquinas roasting in hell. He is also an extreme rigorist. He has a website you can find if you google his name.
His website is called "John the Baptist dot us" (a misnomer if there ever was one)
Sedevacantism is crazy wrong about popes. But they are right about bod, I hate to admit.
Im' not a Feeneyite. Not sede. Just studied up on the subject for sometime.
-
I wonder if CM believed in a flat earth. Does Richard Ibranyi believe in a flat earth?
Who are they?
They are both radical sedevacantists who reject more Popes than normal sedevacantists. CM used to be a poster here but was banned. CM stands for "Catholic Martyr". I forget how many Popes he condemned but he was generally a rigorist, condemning BOB and BOD, NFP, and other things. Richard Ibranyi is the most radical sedevacantist I know of. He rejects all of the Popes for almost a thousand years and talks about canonized saints like St. Thomas Aquinas roasting in hell. He is also an extreme rigorist. He has a website you can find if you google his name.
Yikes! LOL
-
Can anyone point to any traditional Catholic priests or Bishops who believe that the earth is flat? I think it would be interesting to read what they have to say about this issue if there are any.
Almost 3 weeks later and no one has responded.
So it looks like there are no traditional Catholic priests or bishops who believe the earth is flat. Otherwise, someone would have posted a name or two.
Let's face it. They wouldn't want to make themselves out to be off their rocker. After all, being a Trad Catholic is already met with so much scorn, why add fuel to the fire?
After 51 pages, no one has been able to explain the setting of the sun, which comes up and goes down over the horizon nearly perpendicularly in all the most populated areas of the earth, that is, within 30 - 35 degrees of the equator. Oh, right, to flat-earthers there is no equator. Oh well, that's their problem.
No one can explain a total eclipse of the sun either, which I have witnessed first hand. The flat-earthers say the moon is transparent or thin, and you can see stars shining through it. Well, I know for a fact that during a total eclipse of the sun, there is not a single point of sunlight shining through the moon.
No flat-earther has been able to explain how predicted meteor showers like the one that just happened last week can be explained with their ridiculous flat-earth model. BTW I saw several of the predicted meteors with my own two eyes. And I have seen them before, when astronomers have announced their arrival weeks in advance.
There is no canal engineer or railroad engineer who would ever need to account for curvature of the earth since opposite ends of a canal have no relation to each other and opposite ends of a railroad do not need to assess the level line direction of the other end. All these things need to relate to is the level lines of the immediate vicinity to where they are. What's going on hundreds of miles away is insignificant. Therefore, it's never dealt with because it doesn't have any practical meaning.
Flat-earthers cannot explain why the vertical measurement of stars in the night sky are what they are observed to be, which is how sailors are able to use a sextant with a star chart to determine where they are on the spheroid earth. Sailors cannot pinpoint their location on the sea if they insist the earth is flat.
And while you're at it, try telling all your neighbors with satellite antenna TV reception that there is no satellite in the sky and what they're watching is an illusion because their antenna cannot possibly be working like that. But make sure your life insurance is paid up, first.
.
-
Can anyone point to any traditional Catholic priests or Bishops who believe that the earth is flat? I think it would be interesting to read what they have to say about this issue if there are any.
Almost 3 weeks later and no one has responded.
So it looks like there are no traditional Catholic priests or bishops who believe the earth is flat. Otherwise, someone would have posted a name or two.
Let's face it. They wouldn't want to make themselves out to be off their rocker. After all, being a Trad Catholic is already met with so much scorn, why add fuel to the fire?
After 51 pages, no one has been able to explain the setting of the sun, which comes up and goes down over the horizon nearly perpendicularly in all the most populated areas of the earth, that is, within 30 - 35 degrees of the equator. Oh, right, to flat-earthers there is no equator. Oh well, that's their problem.
No one can explain a total eclipse of the sun either, which I have witnessed first hand. The flat-earthers say the moon is transparent or thin, and you can see stars shining through it. Well, I know for a fact that during a total eclipse of the sun, there is not a single point of sunlight shining through the moon.
No flat-earther has been able to explain how predicted meteor showers like the one that just happened last week can be explained with their ridiculous flat-earth model. BTW I saw several of the predicted meteors with my own two eyes. And I have seen them before, when astronomers have announced their arrival weeks in advance.
There is no canal engineer or railroad engineer who would ever need to account for curvature of the earth since opposite ends of a canal have no relation to each other and opposite ends of a railroad do not need to assess the level line direction of the other end. All these things need to relate to is the level lines of the immediate vicinity to where they are. What's going on hundreds of miles away is insignificant. Therefore, it's never dealt with because it doesn't have any practical meaning.
Flat-earthers cannot explain why the vertical measurement of stars in the night sky are what they are observed to be, which is how sailors are able to use a sextant with a star chart to determine where they are on the spheroid earth. Sailors cannot pinpoint their location on the sea if they insist the earth is flat.
And while you're at it, try telling all your neighbors with satellite antenna TV reception that there is no satellite in the sky and what they're watching is an illusion because their antenna cannot possibly be working like that. But make sure your life insurance is paid up, first.
.
The explanation for the sun appearing to go up and down as it tracks across the sky is due to perspective, and is even more easier explained on a flat earth. Ships do not drop over the horizon, but perspective, atmosphere and other realities demonstrate, along with a telescope or camera, that there is no curve, so no ball. The eclipse is only barely beginning to be understood and flat earthers admit (in some cases), that they do not know how it all works. But that there is no curve, there is no doubt. That NASA has promoted a ball earth with fake CGI pictures and stolen billions to "go to the moon" is beyond proven. That NASA elite are all Freemasons is also beyond proof. We've been lied to for at least 500 years. We don't have the equipment, the manpower, the budget to research all these things yet, but more and more the truth of flat earth is coming out.
We've provided videos for you to study, even typing flat earth with the intent to get to the bottom of it will produce plenty of indisputable proof. Its incuмbent up you to look into flat earth, checking videos that explain far more than is possible here in text. Water cannot stick to the outside of a ball. That is such utter nonsense that to try to make a case for it is diabolic. The joke is on us! The powers that be are laughing. You say sailors cannot pinpoint their location on the sea if they insist the earth is flat. Why do you say that? Your lack of information shows ignorance only. The exact opposite is true of heliocentric ball earth. How can the stars track year after year, in never changing clusters called constellations, if the earth is rotating 1080 mph, orbiting 67,000mph around the sun and 550,000 mph through the universe in another direction entirely, yet the stars remain steadfast year after year and even be able to steer ships? With all the so-called scientific motions above, the star patterns could not exist.
As for satellites, why can I not get satellite service in my area or in other unincorporated areas if satellites are hanging in the sky up above? Everyone should have equal access but they don't. That's because towers have provided internet from the beginning. The more towers they erect, the more customers can get connected. There are many videos on this too. Even admissions from those in the know. It is impossible to send bus sized equipment into the air and not expect it to come down. NASA claims there are 25,000 to 30,000 satellites in orbit. Really? And not one has come down? Not one part has hit anyone in the head? Nobody has seen thousands of satellites floating about at high altitude? Hundreds? One? Not even a glimpse? With a high powered camera? We can see the stars with a high powered camera and they are further out. They too are not as NASA says, physical entities radiating gases with hard cores. We have reached the stars, far more local to earth than we've been told with newly available high powered cameras. Stars are nothing like NASA claims, they are electric fields of energy, quite visible to ordinary joes now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdNFo5eWf9g You can find these kind of videos all over the internet showing independent viewing and testing.
You don't have to believe, but if you want to keep your fantasy, you better study. Fake baal earth is going the way of the Studebaker. And it will never return.
-
Clearly you do not like to be sent to videos, but this one is three and a half minutes. It won't explain the particulars of flat earth, but it will explain the why...why and to some degree, how we have been lied to. Are people too comfortable, or too lazy, or too afraid to be angry about this? Please view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjNC0L9_vQU
-
I wonder if CM believed in a flat earth. Does Richard Ibranyi believe in a flat earth?
Who are they?
Michael Dimond does not believe in flat earth and neither does Robert Sungensis. They will eat their words, for sure. But for now, most conservatives and some trads will depend on them for their info and will not look for themselves. Flat earth is Catholic through and through. The enemy's lies are cracking open and many people are waking up. Take the time to get to the bottom of it. Go prove with facts that earth is spinning, round and that it isn't flat and stationary. Merely accepting the indoctrination without knowledge is a very sheeple thing to do.
-
Follow a flat earther like Eric Dubay, or Rob Skiba, or Jeranism for a while. Listen to what they have to say. Investigate like a Protestant might investigate the Catholic Faith. It doesn't take all that much time, but like the dawning light of 9/11, that we are being lied to about EVERYTHING, will strengthen your Catholic resolve to continue to fight more effectively the openly evil powers that be.
-
My goodness.
-
Clearly you do not like to be sent to videos, but this one is three and a half minutes. It won't explain the particulars of flat earth, but it will explain the why...why and to some degree, how we have been lied to. Are people too comfortable, or too lazy, or too afraid to be angry about this? Please view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjNC0L9_vQU
I watched your silly video ----- again. Don't make me laugh. Same old nonsense.
Unless you can come up with something intelligent, you're looking pretty ridiculous. This linked video contains precisely nothing in answer to my questions. It's just rhetoric and miserable complaining with muttered grumbles from Australia.
Speaking of Australia, why can't we see the Southern Cross in California? But you can see it in Argentina or South Africa just fine, but they can't see Polaris or the Big Dipper and we can. If we were all on a flat earth, none of that would be the case, correct?
And you never responded to Matto, as I pointed out.
-
Follow a flat earther like Eric Dubay, or Rob Skiba, or Jeranism for a while. Listen to what they have to say.
I have sunk to wasting about 20 hours watching the brain-numbed videos of Eric Dubay, Rob Skiba and Jeranism. It's pathetic that there are viewers who actually enjoy their drivel. They have so many ignorant and misinformed premises it's hard to count them all. It's a flowing, foul stream of anti-intellectualism. Like Matthew said in another thread, with this many stupid people in America, electing Hillary is a real danger.
Do Eric, Rob and Jeranism think Llamaforce or Donkeypower are standard units of mechanical power?
-
Can anyone point to any traditional Catholic priests or Bishops who believe that the earth is flat? I think it would be interesting to read what they have to say about this issue if there are any.
Three weeks later and no one has responded.
So it looks like there are no traditional Catholic priests or bishops who believe the earth is flat. Otherwise, someone would have posted a name or two.
Let's face it. They wouldn't want to make themselves out to be off their rocker. After all, being a Trad Catholic is already met with so much scorn, why add fuel to the fire?
After 51 pages, no one has been able to explain the setting of the sun, which comes up and goes down over the horizon nearly perpendicularly in all the most populated areas of the earth, that is, within 30 - 35 degrees of the equator. Oh, right, to flat-earthers there is no equator. Oh well, that's their problem.
...
...Etc. But lest you only focus on what you want to pick out like a shyster lawyer is wont to do, just answer Matto's question, above. Where are the traditional priests who proclaim a flat earth is Catholic teaching?
Can you name just one?
.
-
Can anyone point to any traditional Catholic priests or Bishops who believe that the earth is flat? I think it would be interesting to read what they have to say about this issue if there are any.
Three weeks later and no one has responded.
So it looks like there are no traditional Catholic priests or bishops who believe the earth is flat. Otherwise, someone would have posted a name or two.
Let's face it. They wouldn't want to make themselves out to be off their rocker. After all, being a Trad Catholic is already met with so much scorn, why add fuel to the fire?
After 51 pages, no one has been able to explain the setting of the sun, which comes up and goes down over the horizon nearly perpendicularly in all the most populated areas of the earth, that is, within 30 - 35 degrees of the equator. Oh, right, to flat-earthers there is no equator. Oh well, that's their problem.
...
...Etc. But lest you only focus on what you want to pick out like a shyster lawyer is wont to do, just answer Matto's question, above. Where are the traditional priests who proclaim a flat earth is Catholic teaching?
Can you name just one?
.
I think this topic is only newly being discussed amongst Catholics. I've not asked a bunch of priests what they think. I know what Fr. Pfeiffer thinks, which I already posted. The Holy Name Society at St. Athanasius posted it for discussion, but I don't know what Fr. Ringrose's or Fr. Ortiz's opinion is.
Sunset and sunrise have clearly been explained on the FE model in this thread. I don't know why you don't understand it, because it is quite simple.
-
I was just reading the Baltimore Catechism and one of the answers reminded me of this thread. It says: "All believe that the earth is round and moving though many do not understand it." So the priests who wrote the Catechism didn't believe that heliocentrism was a hersesy and they certainly didn't believe in a flat earth. And notice how they say "All believe", discounting those who believe in geocentrism or a flat earth as nobodies.
-
I think this topic is only newly being discussed amongst Catholics. I've not asked a bunch of priests what they think. I know what Fr. Pfeiffer thinks, which I already posted. The Holy Name Society at St. Athanasius posted it for discussion, but I don't know what Fr. Ringrose's or Fr. Ortiz's opinion is.
Sunset and sunrise have clearly been explained on the FE model in this thread. I don't know why you don't understand it, because it is quite simple.
My dear, sunset and sunrise are not explainable with a flat earth model. Period.
The sun goes DOWN in the West but with a flat earth it would only change its angle in the sky and would always be visible, since it's going around in circles above the flat earth, as your videos portray.
They cannot postulate a sun (and moon) going down over the horizon because then they would have to pierce the firmament to go over the edge of your ridiculous dinner-plate flat disk earth (with a pile of dung upside-down on the bottom for no good reason but for sentimental ones alone). And the ramifications of piercing the firmament four times each day is just too much even for flat-earthers to argue for!
Besides, having the sun and moon disappearing UNDER the flat-earth would make them invisible half the time, and the fact is, they are ALWAYS visible from some point on the earth at all times.
Fr. Pfeiffer does not proclaim the earth is flat. He would lose what little following he has if he did that, and he knows it. He's sticking his neck out enormously already by taking sides with the stationary earth (which I am tending to agree with) and against the impudence of Galileo, in support of the Church.
In today's world you have to be ready for a lot of physical and astronomical explanation if you want to say something like this. As the Sungenis movie The Principle shows, it's possible to say the earth is at the center of the universe without breaking any known physical laws. But you will in due course break a lot of new ground with currently accepted cosmology.
It is sufficient in my estimation to say the earth is motionless and the sun, moon, planets and the rest of the universe rotates around it, to shake up academia to the point where they are able to recognize that they've been believing a myth in regards to biological evolution.
But when you go so far as to announce "the earth is flat" then you lose your audience.
There are too many physical realities to consider, and modern technology, engineering and physics is too highly developed for anyone to walk in and say it's all an illusion. Stand in front of a moving Mack truck and say it's not really dangerous.
Acceleration, electromotive force, conservation of energy, heat exchange dynamics, fluid dynamics, aeronautics, rocket science, buoyancy and navigation -- there is just too much known for professionals in these fields to throw it all out in favor of a hair-brained notion that the "earth is flat."
When I see someone who can compose a sentence write that you can't make water in the sea stick to a ball-shaped earth, there is just one response necessary: :facepalm:
-
Follow a flat earther like Eric Dubay, or Rob Skiba, or Jeranism for a while. Listen to what they have to say.
I have sunk to wasting about 20 hours watching the brain-numbed videos of Eric Dubay, Rob Skiba and Jeranism. It's pathetic that there are viewers who actually enjoy their drivel. They have so many ignorant and misinformed premises it's hard to count them all. It's a flowing, foul stream of anti-intellectualism. Like Matthew said in another thread, with this many stupid people in America, electing Hillary is a real danger.
Do Eric, Rob and Jeranism think Llamaforce or Donkeypower are standard units of mechanical power?
Sorry, should be Donkeystrength, Llamathrust and Zebraforce.
Source (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=41920&#p0)
-
Clearly you do not like to be sent to videos, but this one is three and a half minutes. It won't explain the particulars of flat earth, but it will explain the why...why and to some degree, how we have been lied to. Are people too comfortable, or too lazy, or too afraid to be angry about this? Please view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjNC0L9_vQU
I watched your silly video ----- again. Don't make me laugh. Same old nonsense.
Unless you can come up with something intelligent, you're looking pretty ridiculous. This linked video contains precisely nothing in answer to my questions. It's just rhetoric and miserable complaining with muttered grumbles from Australia.
Speaking of Australia, why can't we see the Southern Cross in California? But you can see it in Argentina or South Africa just fine, but they can't see Polaris or the Big Dipper and we can. If we were all on a flat earth, none of that would be the case, correct?
And you never responded to Matto, as I pointed out.
You can't see the Southern Cross from California because its sow low on the horizon, When it rises to its zenith, you can see it from Texas and Florida, something not possible on a globe. Northerners' guide to Southern Cross | Favorite Star Patterns | EarthSky
earthsky.org/favorite-star-patterns/the-southern-cross-signpost-of-southern-skies
Apr 20, 2016 - The Big Dipper soars highest in the sky on late northern spring evenings. When the Big Dipper is seen above Polaris, the North Star, the Southern Cross is seen standing over the southern horizon in the southern Florida and Texas. For the Southern Hemisphere, by the way, it works the same way – but in reverse.
Just because you can't see the Southern Cross from Cal doesn't mean we live on a globe. How can regions south of the equator see the North Star if we are on a ball? The equator region would block the star from being seen by those below the line of sight. But most all the way south, even some of Antarctica, you can all see the North Star. How is that possible on a globe?
Sorry to Matto, I missed that and I'll go back and look...
-
Follow a flat earther like Eric Dubay, or Rob Skiba, or Jeranism for a while. Listen to what they have to say.
I have sunk to wasting about 20 hours watching the brain-numbed videos of Eric Dubay, Rob Skiba and Jeranism. It's pathetic that there are viewers who actually enjoy their drivel. They have so many ignorant and misinformed premises it's hard to count them all. It's a flowing, foul stream of anti-intellectualism. Like Matthew said in another thread, with this many stupid people in America, electing Hillary is a real danger.
Do Eric, Rob and Jeranism think Llamaforce or Donkeypower are standard units of mechanical power?
No problem. Carry on.
-
Can anyone point to any traditional Catholic priests or Bishops who believe that the earth is flat? I think it would be interesting to read what they have to say about this issue if there are any.
Three weeks later and no one has responded.
So it looks like there are no traditional Catholic priests or bishops who believe the earth is flat. Otherwise, someone would have posted a name or two.
Let's face it. They wouldn't want to make themselves out to be off their rocker. After all, being a Trad Catholic is already met with so much scorn, why add fuel to the fire?
After 51 pages, no one has been able to explain the setting of the sun, which comes up and goes down over the horizon nearly perpendicularly in all the most populated areas of the earth, that is, within 30 - 35 degrees of the equator. Oh, right, to flat-earthers there is no equator. Oh well, that's their problem.
...
...Etc. But lest you only focus on what you want to pick out like a shyster lawyer is wont to do, just answer Matto's question, above. Where are the traditional priests who proclaim a flat earth is Catholic teaching?
Can you name just one?
.
Cosmas Indiocoplestes author of Christian Topography was a Catholic Monk in the 6th century who adamantly insisted that earth is flat and that those in the end times have to believe it to save their souls. Read the book online free. Catholic bishops and priests? Soon. There are some prominent Catholics who know, but not yet ready to say publicly. Is that what you're waiting for? Only then will you admit it? You respecters of persons always lag until everyone else is on board, and then you come forward. And you will of course, of that I have no doubt. Just like the heliocentric Catholics now all suddenly Geocentric after scoffing at first. I should have saved those conversations, but I didn't think to. Be assured I will save all conversations here on for proof of those who were actively stubborn against truth even when it was so obvious, because they always pretend they knew all along.
-
Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated almost straight over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern Hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude.
-
Cosmas Indiocoplestes author of Christian Topography was a Catholic Monk in the 6th century who adamantly insisted that earth is flat and that those in the end times have to believe it to save their souls. Read the book online free.
I found this book and started to read it. So far I am still reading the introduction where the editor says Cosmas may have been a Nestorian heretic and makes fun of his model of the world as ridiculous. But so far I have read Cosmas' world described and it is not round as has been shown in the flat earth maps posted on this forum but rectangular, the same shape as the Ark of the Covenant.
-
Cosmas Indiocoplestes author of Christian Topography was a Catholic Monk in the 6th century who adamantly insisted that earth is flat and that those in the end times have to believe it to save their souls. Read the book online free.
I found this book and started to read it. So far I am still reading the introduction where the editor says Cosmas may have been a Nestorian heretic and makes fun of his model of the world as ridiculous. But so far I have read Cosmas' world described and it is not round as has been shown in the flat earth maps posted on this forum but rectangular, the same shape as the Ark of the Covenant.
Yea, when you get into the book, Cosmas clearly loves Our Lady, and describes her as Theotokos, something a Nestorian would never do because they didn't believe She was the Mother of God. His description of earth is interesting, and definitely not like modern folk are considering it to be, but again, there's a lot we don't know. We just know that it is provably flat. Cosmas' description of the altar and Church as microcosms of the earth is quite beautiful. The candles represent the stars, the altar represents the earth, the scallops of the altar cloth represent the seas, and the shape of a Church is like that of the earth, with a dome over a rectangle space running from East to West. All remarkable things for consideration if true. Especially in light of the discovery that the stars of the mantle of Our Lady of Guadalupe show She lays in the sky with her feet in the East and head in the West. I believe she faces North. Here is a fascinating article about the configuration of the stars for this year, as the King Star has recently entered Virgo for the first time since the birth of Christ, and will exit in 9 1/2 months. The Remnant Online. http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2127-apocalypse-now-another-great-sign-rises-in-the-heavens
-
Be assured I will save all conversations here on for proof of those who were actively stubborn against truth even when it was so obvious, because they always pretend they knew all along.
So true.
-
I think that because we have as traditional Catholics been taught so many lies by establishment scientists such as evolution that it is hard to differentiate what is true and what is not. We also do not have a true papal and magisterial authority functioning properly to handle these issues to tell us what is true. This presents us with many difficulties.
-
Cosmas Indiocoplestes author of Christian Topography was a Catholic Monk in the 6th century who adamantly insisted that earth is flat and that those in the end times have to believe it to save their souls.
Now this is an intersting proposition, isn't it?
-
Polaris can be seen, however, up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude.
Where and when has Polaris been seen in the north sky from 23.5 degrees south latitude?
And are you now breaking ranks with flat-earthers who deny the existence of the equator (0 degrees latitude)?
-
There are some prominent Catholics who know, but not yet ready to say publicly. Is that what you're waiting for? Only then will you admit it?
There are some prominent Catholics who know -- know what?
Tell me what makes the water on your flat-earth model stay on the ground, if you can.
Why does the sea in your flat-earthiness remain DOWN instead of floating up into the air?
What makes ambient pressure to increase under water and decrease as you ascend a mountain?
Don't bother trying to explain that pressure under water does not increase with depth.
Why does a mercury barometer behave the way it does in your flatness ideology?
Why does a ball roll downhill instead of uphill if the earth is flat?
Where do earthquakes come from if the earth is flat?
Why do mountains increase in height and sidewalks move over a number of inches in an earthquake, if the earth is flat?
And why does volcanic lava flow out of the ground in your flat-earth conception of reality?
Do you deny the existence of volcanoes?
-
I have a way of finding out if the world is flat or round. If the world is round then in the summertime at the North Pole the sun does not set for six months and in the wintertime it is dark for six months. And at the South Pole the same is true, in summer it is always day for six months and in winter it is always dark for six months. In the flat earth model it is possible for it to always be day during summertime at the North pole and always be night in the wintertime at the North Pole, but it is impossible for it to always be day in the south for six months during the summertime. So if you go as far south as possible and it does not become day for six months in the summertime you will know the world may be flat.
If someone brought this up forgive me for I did not read the whole thread.
-
I have a way of finding out if the world is flat or round. If the world is round then in the summertime at the North Pole the sun does not set for six months and in the wintertime it is dark for six months. And at the South Pole the same is true, in summer it is always day for six months and in winter it is always dark for six months. In the flat earth model it is possible for it to always be day during summertime at the North pole and always be night in the wintertime at the North Pole, but it is impossible for it to always be day in the south for six months during the summertime. So if you go as far south as possible and it does not become day for six months in the summertime you will know the world may be flat.
If someone brought this up forgive me for I did not read the whole thread.
No, it's not divisible in two, it's divisble in THREE.
There are three regions: the Tropic of Cancer, the equator, and the Tropic of Capricorn.
Therefore, the seasons are following the sun's path as it traverses between those three regions.
When the sun is over the Tropic of Cancer, it is summer in the north.
When the sun is over the Tropic of Capricorn, it is summer in the south.
When the sun is over the equator, it is spring and fall, respectively.
This configuration is over the flat circle model of earth.
-
1.) Explain compasses if there are no north or south poles. How does a compass work on a flat earth?
2.) Where does magma come from? Does the magma float under the flat eart and what keeps it in place?
3.) If the earth is not a globe then where does Hell rest?
-
1.) Explain compasses if there are no north or south poles. How does a compass work on a flat earth?
2.) Where does magma come from? Does the magma float under the flat eart and what keeps it in place?
3.) If the earth is not a globe then where does Hell rest?
Nobody said there is no NORTH Pole on the FE model, there is, and it is the magnetic center of the disk.
The south "pole" is what does not exist on the FE model. All points 360 degrees away from north are "south" on the disk.
Magma is in the expected place - under the earth - just like hell.
The earth disk is known to be a few miles in depth, as from our drilling. You can see plenty of examples of this, so I don't know why this would make it hard to grasp the flat earth disk model. Also, magma does not float, as in the globe earth model. There are areas of magma, and areas of coal, and areas of oil, etc. But, it is not as is given in the globe model - all the land "floating" above a sea of magma, above an iron core. That model of the globe is 100% theoretical and unproven, anyway.
-
Nobody said there is no NORTH Pole on the FE model, there is, and it is the magnetic center of the disk.
The south "pole" is what does not exist on the FE model. All points 360 degrees away from north are "south" on the disk.
Thanks for reminding me of another proof that the earth isn't flat. There are only a limited number of ways a flat disk can be magnetized. Guess what isn't one of them?
If you guessed "North in the center, south around the edges", congratulations. Radially magnetized disk magnets are impossible. There has to be a donut hole for a radially magnetized magnet to be possible, and last I checked, there's not donut hole at the north pole.
-
There are some prominent Catholics who know, but not yet ready to say publicly. Is that what you're waiting for? Only then will you admit it?
There are some prominent Catholics who know -- know what?
Tell me what makes the water on your flat-earth model stay on the ground, if you can.
The water is heavier than air.
Why does the sea in your flat-earthiness remain DOWN instead of floating up into the air?
Same answer.
What makes ambient pressure to increase under water and decrease as you ascend a mountain?
What makes that on a ball?
Don't bother trying to explain that pressure under water does not increase with depth.
So, let's believe NASA and modern science because you don't know.
Why does a mercury barometer behave the way it does in your flatness ideology?
What makes mercury barometer behave the way it does in the ball earth scendario?
Why does a ball roll downhill instead of uphill if the earth is flat?
The same way that higher rolls down to lower on ball earth. Gravity is a farce however.
Where do earthquakes come from if the earth is flat?
Where do earthquakes come from if earth is round?
Why do mountains increase in height and sidewalks move over a number of inches in an earthquake, if the earth is flat?
Why do mountains increase in height and sidewalks move over a number of inches in an earthquake if earth is a ball?
And why does volcanic lava flow out of the ground in your flat-earth conception of reality?
Same question for ball.
Do you deny the existence of volcanoes?
Of course not. What has that to do with flat earth?
Do you think we went to the moon?
-
1.) Explain compasses if there are no north or south poles. How does a compass work on a flat earth?
Compasses only work on a flat earth. How, pray tell, can a compass, that must be held flat, point to the north pole when it is above and higher than flat?
2.) Where does magma come from? Does the magma float under the flat eart and what keeps it in place?
Why is this an issue? Magma is under the same influence that all things are, whatever is heavier than air has its own weight.
3.) If the earth is not a globe then where does Hell rest?
-
Compasses do not work on a flat earth, as I explained above. You cannot have a radially magnetized disk, so it's physically impossible for a disk flat earth to have a north pole at its center and a south pole all around the edges.
I'm also curious to know your reasoning for declaring so confidently that gravity is a farce. Gravity is measurable, and it's not even that difficult. You just need a sufficiently sensitive torque sensor.
-
Happenby, if you don't know how to use the quote feature, you shouldn't confuse the thread by making nonsense posts like that.
There are some prominent Catholics who know, but not yet ready to say publicly. Is that what you're waiting for? Only then will you admit it?
There are some prominent Catholics who know -- know what?
Tell me what makes the water on your flat-earth model stay on the ground, if you can.
The water is heavier than air.
The sun is heavier than air, too. Why don't the sun and moon fall from the sky, unless you claim they're lighter than air.
When rain falls from the sky how did it get up there if it was heavier in the first place? How do you explain what "heavier" is on a flat earth - why do things fall down instead of up? Something must be pulling them "down" -- what would that be?
Why does the sea in your flat-earthiness remain DOWN instead of floating up into the air?
Same answer.
Same question, which you did not answer.
What makes ambient pressure to increase under water and decrease as you ascend a mountain?
What makes that on a ball?
Pressure gradients are established fact by empirical evidence, due to gravity. Where does gravity come from on a flat earth? Or do you deny the existence of gravity?
Don't bother trying to explain that pressure under water does not increase with depth.
So, let's believe NASA and modern science because you don't know.
I have a lot of personal experience with water pressure, and I don't need to listen to NASA to understand it. Are you a scuba diver? Have you climbed to the top of a 14,000-ft tall mountain with a barometer?
Why does a mercury barometer behave the way it does in your flatness ideology?
What makes mercury barometer behave the way it does in the ball earth scendario?
Barometers are standard meteorological instruments for use on planet earth, which are explainable if the earth is spherical, but I'm asking how you explain them on flat earth.
You're acting just like a idiot parrot. If you can't answer any questions you ought to give it up because you're making yourself look foolish.
Flat-earthers are in a disarray of disagreement when it comes to basic physical mechanical properties of matter and our world. They can't agree on east or west, north or south, or on whether there is an equator on earth. They claim that Polaris (north star) has bee seen from 23 degrees south of the equator but can't provide any examples of where or when that was. They show the sun and moon hovering under their "dome" but can't describe what keeps them there or what makes them move, or how the sun leaves the daytime sky at night when the stars become visible, or why the stars are not visible in the daytime.
This is why Hillary could be elected president, because there are too many stupid people who can vote out there.
.
-
Compasses do not work on a flat earth, as I explained above. You cannot have a radially magnetized disk, so it's physically impossible for a disk flat earth to have a north pole at its center and a south pole all around the edges.
I'm also curious to know your reasoning for declaring so confidently that gravity is a farce. Gravity is measurable, and it's not even that difficult. You just need a sufficiently sensitive torque sensor.
Compasses can only work on a flat earth. When you say you cannot have a radially magnetized disk, you seem to be suggesting that there is no depth to the earth.
Gravity has all but been discarded beyond the lipstick brand of pop science shoved down our throats by atheists. Serious discussions have gone on for years driving scientists into exodus-from the old gravity paradigm because it doesn't work. All that so called pulling, at 1000s of different rates, are proven a patchwork of lies to explain away nonsense like water sticking to the outside of a round object. Such a thing has never been accomplished on any level yet everyone believes it about earth. Such nonsensical teachings are no longer acceptable because people are waking up. Gravity only lives where indoctrination remains unchallenged. Please investigate for yourself. But be honest and search both sides for truth, don't just swallow the standard indoctrination without seriously checking.
-
1.) Explain compasses if there are no north or south poles. How does a compass work on a flat earth?
2.) Where does magma come from? Does the magma float under the flat eart and what keeps it in place?
3.) If the earth is not a globe then where does Hell rest?
Nobody said there is no NORTH Pole on the FE model, there is, and it is the magnetic center of the disk.
The south "pole" is what does not exist on the FE model. All points 360 degrees away from north are "south" on the disk.
For this to make any sense at all, the center of the "disk" would have to be ice since if you follow a compass north you will inevitable end up in the Arctic Ocean. So not only is there ice competely surrounding the disk in order to explain away the edge of the earth and Antarctica, but there is a large portion of ice in the center in order to explain away the North Pole and compasses leading one north.
Is this what you are saying?
-
Gravity has all but been discarded beyond the lipstick brand of pop science shoved down our throats by atheists.
Can you post an image of "lipstick brand of pop science?"
Serious discussions have gone on for years driving scientists into exodus-from the old gravity paradigm because it doesn't work. All that so called pulling, at 1000s of different rates, are proven a patchwork of lies to explain away nonsense like water sticking to the outside of a round object.
Why do you have a problem with differing magnitudes of gravity over various places on earth? They don't vary by much -- it takes a very sensitive scale to detect the difference.
Such a thing has never been accomplished on any level yet everyone believes it about earth.
What experiment would make you happy to accomplish water sticking to the outside of a round [spherical?] object? It's a bit challenging to form a spheroid in space large enough to develop the attraction due to gravity sufficient to make water adhere like the seas do to earth. Have you heard of someone trying to do that? It's a bit disingenuous to hurl calumny at a topic lest a virtually impossible feat would be performed. If someone were to go to the moon and drop a bottle of water, you'd say he didn't really go to the moon. Or you'd say that was a BOTTLE of water, not "water."
Such nonsensical teachings are no longer acceptable because people are waking up. Gravity only lives where indoctrination remains unchallenged. Please investigate for yourself. But be honest and search both sides for truth, don't just swallow the standard indoctrination without seriously checking.
The onus is on you to provide any experiments that show gravity is not real.
You may as well state that the sun is an illusion or that water isn't wet or that earthquakes are entirely imaginary.
-
Compasses can only work on a flat earth. When you say you cannot have a radially magnetized disk, you seem to be suggesting that there is no depth to the earth.
Are you in possession of a magnet that's a flat disk, which has a north pole in the center and south pole all around the perimeter?
I've never seen one nor heard of one. Maybe you've discovered something new!!
But to say that "compasses can only work on a flat earth" is patently false. If they can work on a model of a spherical earth, they can work on the real thing. And they can. A solid ball of iron can be magnetized to have opposite poles on the top and on the bottom.
But a solid flat disc cannot be so magnetized, without a gaping HOLE in the center. For the earth to have that format the hole would have to be many hundreds of miles in diameter, and it would have to extend all the way to the bottom of the earth's depth. None of the flat-earth images you have provided include such an essential detail, therefore they are at LEAST incorrect on one major aspect. They're probably incorrect entirely.
-
Here's an image for "pop science" :
(http://www.geekalerts.com/u/pop-quiz-clock-white.jpg) (http://www.geekalerts.com/science-math-pop-quiz-clocks/)
(Clickable image!!)
Actually, it's a Pop Quiz Science Clock from geekalerts.com -- pretty cool!
.
.
.
Someone should tell these guys they're missing out on flat-earth clocks!!
http://www.geekalerts.com/sparkly-recycled-cd-clocks/
(http://www.geekalerts.com/u/cd-clocks.jpg)
.
-
STILL no response from Neil on what those "extra bodies" are that are passing through the solar and lunar eclipses in the video footage.
:sleep:
-
1.) Explain compasses if there are no north or south poles. How does a compass work on a flat earth?
2.) Where does magma come from? Does the magma float under the flat eart and what keeps it in place?
3.) If the earth is not a globe then where does Hell rest?
Nobody said there is no NORTH Pole on the FE model, there is, and it is the magnetic center of the disk.
The south "pole" is what does not exist on the FE model. All points 360 degrees away from north are "south" on the disk.
For this to make any sense at all, the center of the "disk" would have to be ice since if you follow a compass north you will inevitable end up in the Arctic Ocean. So not only is there ice competely surrounding the disk in order to explain away the edge of the earth and Antarctica, but there is a large portion of ice in the center in order to explain away the North Pole and compasses leading one north.
Is this what you are saying?
No. But the magnetic problem is not one I totally understand, either. A Catholic monk in the 6th century who wrote a book called Christian Topography, (free to read online) says that the earth is flat, but shaped more like a rectangle than a circle (depending on what is livable and where the outer regions are) and has a mountain in the center. It is thought the mountain serves as magnetic north. The problems with round earth are impossible to resolve, but the problems with flat earth are only in the lack of information regarding some particulars and technicalities. My responses won't fill in all the blanks, but the most important ones, the fact that NASA has never provided even one view of the globe that isn't cgi, not one true video of the spinning globe, that they stole billions from people to fund a fake moon landing and a false scientific community to carry on a pagan fairy tale... is a problem. There is no curvature commensurate with a ball of 25,000 mi circuмference, but all measurements (modern lasers, etc) prove extended flatness and zero curve. No matter how high man has gone, the horizon rises to meet the eye, something impossible on a globe. Also, water does not stick to the outside of a ball. Why are they lying to us?
-
STILL no response from Neil on what those "extra bodies" are that are passing through the solar and lunar eclipses in the video footage.
:sleep:
I responded yesterday. You're obviously not reading my posts.
I asked you in several different ways to describe the minute and second time stamp in the video where it says these two "extra bodies" are "not supposed to be there." Because I don't know what two bodies you're asking about.
Did you read my post this time?
-
STILL no response from Neil on what those "extra bodies" are that are passing through the solar and lunar eclipses in the video footage.
:sleep:
I responded yesterday. You're obviously not reading my posts.
I asked you in several different ways to describe the minute and second time stamp in the video where it says these two "extra bodies" are "not supposed to be there." Because I don't know what two bodies you're asking about.
Did you read my post this time?
You're getting your threads mixed up. The "two extra bodies" video is in the other thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=41893&min=20&#p7).
-
STILL no response from Neil on what those "extra bodies" are that are passing through the solar and lunar eclipses in the video footage.
:sleep:
I responded yesterday. You're obviously not reading my posts.
I asked you in several different ways to describe the minute and second time stamp in the video where it says these two "extra bodies" are "not supposed to be there." Because I don't know what two bodies you're asking about.
Did you read my post this time?
You're getting your threads mixed up. The "two extra bodies" video is in the other thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=41893&min=20&#p7).
Oops, sorry!
:facepalm:
-
Gravity has all but been discarded beyond the lipstick brand of pop science shoved down our throats by atheists.
Can you post an image of "lipstick brand of pop science?"
Serious discussions have gone on for years driving scientists into exodus-from the old gravity paradigm because it doesn't work. All that so called pulling, at 1000s of different rates, are proven a patchwork of lies to explain away nonsense like water sticking to the outside of a round object.
Why do you have a problem with differing magnitudes of gravity over various places on earth? They don't vary by much -- it takes a very sensitive scale to detect the difference.
The effects vary quite a bit. Whole oceans sit wrapped around a ball as children jump freely next to it? How does gravity work? Whole planets are carried about, some in stable patterns while others vary in orbits, yet, a small dog can jump in circles back over his own body with little effort. For gravity to work, it must be a constant. Gravity remains theory admitted by all of science. It is contradictory and every attempt to identify or qualify it has been a failure. They simply pronounce gravity the cause of all sorts of things, including water draining directions, focault's pendulum, people weighing what they do and planets orbiting. The differences in these things is so vast, this answer, gravity, has become a religion rather than science.
Such a thing has never been accomplished on any level yet everyone believes it about earth.
What experiment would make you happy to accomplish water sticking to the outside of a round [spherical?] object? It's a bit challenging to form a spheroid in space large enough to develop the attraction due to gravity sufficient to make water?adhere like the seas do to earth. Have you heard of someone trying to do that? It's a bit disingenuous to hurl calumny at a topic lest a virtually impossible feat would be performed. If someone were to go to the moon and drop a bottle of water, you'd say he didn't really go to the moon. Or you'd say that was a BOTTLE of water, not "water."
The problem with water sticking to the outside of a ball is that it is contradictory to all known experiments. All things must be demonstrated with some level of proof. There is zero proof water sticks to the outside of any ball, ever. There is zero proof water surface holds in a curve. What is unreasonable about what I've said in this paragraph? All I'm saying is, people are lying to you. And you twist that into a rebuttal saying I'm in denial. I believe you know that what I'm saying is at least interesting, if not true. Otherwise, you would not have chosen the absurd comparison above and then sling insults to try to prove that you've not been indoctrinated. A reasonable person goes and checks prior to slinging mud. I've done nothing to harm you, said nothing unreasonable, just something you aren't familiar with.
Such nonsensical teachings are no longer acceptable because people are waking up. Gravity only lives where indoctrination remains unchallenged. Please investigate for yourself. But be honest and search both sides for truth, don't just swallow the standard indoctrination without seriously checking.
The onus is on you to provide any experiments that show gravity is not real.
Not really. The onus is on you to prove gravity. How is it that gravity can pull up a toy balloon and cannot pull up a brick? If I throw up a book in the air, why doesn’t it go on up? That book goes up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air. That is the only reason. If I cut the string of a toy balloon, it rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle. I take a brick and a feather. I blow the feather. Yonder it goes. Finally, it begins to settle and comes down. The brick goes up as far as my force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air. Different matter has different density and therefore different weight. That's all.
You may as well state that the sun is an illusion or that water isn't wet or that earthquakes are entirely imaginary.
I will never do that. What I have shown is not illogical. The rotating, wobbling, whirling, barreling ball earth jetting through space is what's illogical. And now we've actually caught NASA lying. They can't prove any of their theories or prove their lies about going to the moon, or about taking pictures of ball earth, let alone prove a superspeeding round earth. No, I do not hold the absurd, so I would never say such things as you suggest.
-
Spinning water balls jetting through space? And we're crazy for not believing the atheist scientists promoting such nonsense.
-
Talk about nutty ideas.
-
And around the intellectually impaired.
-
Heliocentrists claim the ball-Earth is perpetually spinning on its axis at a mind-numbing 1,038 miles per hour, or 19 miles per second, and somehow people, animals, buildings, oceans, and other surface phenomena can stick to the under-side of the spinning ball without falling or flying off. Take a ride on the “Spinner” at your local amusement park, however, and notice how the faster it spins, the more you are pushed away from the center of spin, not towards it. Even if the centripetal (inward pulling) force of gravity did exist, which it does not, the centrifugal (outward pushing) force of the ball-Earth’s supposed 19 mile per second spin would have to be overcome in relation to the size of the earth by a force that would crush everything on earth to dust.
-
Heliocentrists claim the ball-Earth is perpetually spinning on its axis at a mind-numbing 1,038 miles per hour, or 19 miles per second, and somehow people, animals, buildings, oceans, and other surface phenomena can stick to the under-side of the spinning ball without falling or flying off. Take a ride on the “Spinner” at your local amusement park, however, and notice how the faster it spins, the more you are pushed away from the center of spin, not towards it. Even if the centripetal (inward pulling) force of gravity did exist, which it does not, the centrifugal (outward pushing) force of the ball-Earth’s supposed 19 mile per second spin would have to be overcome in relation to the size of the earth by a force that would crush everything on earth to dust.
Major truth here.
I'm sure it will be overlooked by Neil.
-
Cosmas Indiocoplestes author of Christian Topography was a Catholic Monk in the 6th century who adamantly insisted that earth is flat and that those in the end times have to believe it to save their souls.
Now this is an intersting proposition, isn't it?
Here is a priest (who outranks a monk BTW) on the same topic:
We Catholics are often accused of being completely intolerant. Generally the accusations run along lines like these: We claim that we are right; in fact we admit that we are right. All others are wrong, and we let them know that we think they are wrong. We want to jam our opinions down the throat of everyone else who does not hold our opinions. In our turn we will pay no attention to the opinions and views of non-Catholics...
But we are intolerant?
If by that you mean that we believe that there is such a thing as a positive difference between religious truth and religious error, religious right and religious wrong, I'm afraid we are intolerant. But if by intolerant you mean that we make life difficult for those who disagree with us, I do not think that your accusation is according to the facts.
I do not believe however that it is possible for any honest man to be tolerant where truth and error are concerned. An astronomer whose students include a fellow who is convinced that the world is flat as a dinner dish and another who cries out that the sun moves around the earth, not the earth around the sun, will hardly be likely to be tolerant of these two fellows' ridiculous notions...
You send your children to school in order that they may shed their childish and heretical ideas about arithmetic and geography. If an accountant devised and practiced a bookkeeping method by which two and two are made to add up to five, he would soon find himself facing a highly intolerant law court.
One is not tolerant in the sense that he grants as fact the fantasies of the little boy who insists that the moon is made of green cheese; but one is -- one should be -- kind.
Any lurking sedes might be pleased to know this "Letter" has a 1949 Imprimatur from +Joseph E. Ritter and a Nihil obstat from Censor Librorum, Fr. Innocentius Swoboda, O.F.M.
Did Christian Topography have an Imprimmatur??
.
-
Heliocentrists claim the ball-Earth is perpetually spinning on its axis at a mind-numbing 1,038 miles per hour, or 19 miles per second, and somehow people, animals, buildings, oceans, and other surface phenomena can stick to the under-side of the spinning ball without falling or flying off. Take a ride on the “Spinner” at your local amusement park, however, and notice how the faster it spins, the more you are pushed away from the center of spin, not towards it. Even if the centripetal (inward pulling) force of gravity did exist, which it does not, the centrifugal (outward pushing) force of the ball-Earth’s supposed 19 mile per second spin would have to be overcome in relation to the size of the earth by a force that would crush everything on earth to dust.
Major truth here.
I'm sure it will be overlooked by Neil.
You won't find me taking issue with geocentrism, so don't play the straw man routine.
Geocentrism has absolutely nothing to do with flat-earthism. They are independent topics.
The earth can be a globe and motionless with the sun and planets revolving around it no problem, and even a Foucault pendulum can operate the same way as we see it do in various venues all over the planet.
But a Foucault pendulum could not operate as we can see it does, if the earth were flat.
But you're probably uninformed regarding the pendulum because flat-earthers stay away from that like it was Kryptonite or Plutonium! :tinfoil:
-
You've done it again: mixed your responses with mine. I thought this was all my post, at first sight.
Gravity has all but been discarded beyond the lipstick brand of pop science shoved down our throats by atheists.
Can you post an image of "lipstick brand of pop science?"
I guess you're going to pass on the image of lipstick brand pop science.
I can't blame you for that one.
Serious discussions have gone on for years driving scientists into exodus-from the old gravity paradigm because it doesn't work. All that so called pulling, at 1000s of different rates, are proven a patchwork of lies to explain away nonsense like water sticking to the outside of a round object.
Why do you have a problem with differing magnitudes of gravity over various places on earth? They don't vary by much -- it takes a very sensitive scale to detect the difference.
The effects vary quite a bit.
So -- what's the largest variation in weight measurement you can cite? Is it more than one percent?
If so, where was it observed and when, and by whom, and what was the weights and what was the object weighed? If you don't have an answer, then you don't have any point. The onus is on you.
Whole oceans sit wrapped around a ball as children jump freely next to it? How does gravity work? Whole planets are carried about, some in stable patterns while others vary in orbits, yet, a small dog can jump in circles back over his own body with little effort. For gravity to work, it must be a constant. Gravity remains theory admitted by all of science. It is contradictory and every attempt to identify or qualify it has been a failure. They simply pronounce gravity the cause of all sorts of things, including water draining directions, focault's pendulum, people weighing what they do and planets orbiting. The differences in these things is so vast, this answer, gravity, has become a religion rather than science.
Such a thing has never been accomplished on any level yet everyone believes it about earth.
What experiment would make you happy to accomplish water sticking to the outside of a round [spherical?] object? It's a bit challenging to form a spheroid in space large enough to develop the attraction due to gravity sufficient to make water?adhere like the seas do to earth. Have you heard of someone trying to do that? It's a bit disingenuous to hurl calumny at a topic lest a virtually impossible feat would be performed. If someone were to go to the moon and drop a bottle of water, you'd say he didn't really go to the moon. Or you'd say that was a BOTTLE of water, not "water."
The problem with water sticking to the outside of a ball is that it is contradictory to all known experiments. All things must be demonstrated with some level of proof. There is zero proof water sticks to the outside of any ball, ever. There is zero proof water surface holds in a curve. What is unreasonable about what I've said in this paragraph?
I asked you a question and you answer with another question!!
The adherence of oceans AND the earth's atmosphere to the surface of earth is a very simple concept verifiable by calculation and the application of the law of gravity to the distance between the aggregate mass of the earth's bulk and each particle of water and air. It can be approximated with simple algebra but takes calculus to get it accurate.
You say it's "contradictory to all known experiments," but that is false. There are numerous experiments with large, heavy objects and their relative attraction to each other as expected to happen with the miniscule attraction due to gravity. That is an adequate "level of proof" that you're ignoring, above!
Water, sand, wood chips, alcohol, or any other material would equally "stick" (the proper word is adhere) to any ball of sufficient mass and density, due to the attraction of gravity, which is directly proportional to the relative masses and indirectly proportional to the square of the distance between them. It works on paper and it works empirically. What more do you want??!!
All I'm saying is, people are lying to you. And you twist that into a rebuttal saying I'm in denial. I believe you know that what I'm saying is at least interesting, if not true. Otherwise, you would not have chosen the absurd comparison above and then sling insults to try to prove that you've not been indoctrinated. A reasonable person goes and checks prior to slinging mud. I've done nothing to harm you, said nothing unreasonable, just something you aren't familiar with.
I'm quite familiar with it. What amazes me is that there are actually people who are dug into the denial of the obvious. And when I try to clarify their error and point the way to reality, they get all huffy and nonsensical, which see.
Such nonsensical teachings are no longer acceptable because people are waking up. Gravity only lives where indoctrination remains unchallenged. Please investigate for yourself. But be honest and search both sides for truth, don't just swallow the standard indoctrination without seriously checking.
The onus is on you to provide any experiments that show gravity is not real.
Not really. The onus is on you to prove gravity.
Yes, really. There are numerous experiments for hundreds of years showing how gravity works. Do you want a list, or what?
How is it that gravity can pull up a toy balloon and cannot pull up a brick?
The brick has the same gravity force on it that the toy balloon has. But the brick is heavier than the air it displaces while the balloon is lighter than the air it displaces.
You know, Archimedes discovered the basis of buoyancy over 2,000 years ago. It's a pretty funny story, actually. He was taking a bath in water when...
If I throw up a book in the air, why doesn’t it go on up? That book goes up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air.
It's true the book is heavier than the air it displaces, otherwise it would have floated away before you bothered to throw it. So why can't you throw the balloon into the air like you can the book??
That is the only reason. If I cut the string of a toy balloon, it rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle.
Why would it slow down and stop rising at a certain height? Why would it begin to settle? I've seen balloons just keep rising and rising. I made hot air balloons as a child with birthday candles and dry cleaner bags. They just kept going and going till they disappeared into the night sky, and that was with illumination (the candles burning).
I take a brick and a feather. I blow the feather. Yonder it goes. Finally, it begins to settle and comes down. The brick goes up as far as my force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air. Different matter has different density and therefore different weight. That's all.
So why don't you describe what happens in a vacuum, without air resistance? Which can you throw further in a vacuum, a feather or a brick?
Which falls faster: a pebble or a cannonball ...... from the Leaning Tower of Pisa?
You may as well state that the sun is an illusion or that water isn't wet or that earthquakes are entirely imaginary.
I will never do that. What I have shown is not illogical. The rotating, wobbling, whirling, barreling ball earth jetting through space is what's illogical.
Please knock off the straw man garbage.
I have never said one single word in support of a moving, spinning, whirling earth.
So you only confuse the discussion and muck up the works by repeating this junk.
And now we've actually caught NASA lying. They can't prove any of their theories or prove their lies about going to the moon, or about taking pictures of ball earth, let alone prove a superspeeding round earth. No, I do not hold the absurd, so I would never say such things as you suggest.
-
Happenby, if you don't know how to use the quote feature, you shouldn't confuse the thread by making nonsense posts like that.
There are some prominent Catholics who know, but not yet ready to say publicly. Is that what you're waiting for? Only then will you admit it?
There are some prominent Catholics who know -- know what?
Tell me what makes the water on your flat-earth model stay on the ground, if you can.
The water is heavier than air.
The sun is heavier than air, too. Why don't the sun and moon fall from the sky, unless you claim they're lighter than air.
When rain falls from the sky how did it get up there if it was heavier in the first place? How do you explain what "heavier" is on a flat earth - why do things fall down instead of up? Something must be pulling them "down" -- what would that be?
As scripture describes, water is above the firmament. That is rain. And it falls when it rains.
Why does the sea in your flat-earthiness remain DOWN instead of floating up into the air?
Same answer.
Same question, which you did not answer.
The sun is described in scripture. Read it.
What makes ambient pressure to increase under water and decrease as you ascend a mountain?
And what makes the ambient pressure different in the northern "hemisphere" and the "southern "hemisphere".
What makes that on a ball?
You haven't even addressed the absurdity of a ball travelling 4 different directions at break neck speed, so you go first.
Pressure gradients are established fact by empirical evidence, due to gravity. Where does gravity come from on a flat earth? Or do you deny the existence of gravity?
No gravity, stuff is just heavier than air.
Don't bother trying to explain that pressure under water does not increase with depth.
So, let's believe NASA and modern science because you don't know.
I have a lot of personal experience with water pressure, and I don't need to listen to NASA to understand it. Are you a scuba diver? Have you climbed to the top of a 14,000-ft tall mountain with a barometer?
Why does a mercury barometer behave the way it does in your flatness ideology?
What makes mercury barometer behave the way it does in the ball earth scendario?
Barometers are standard meteorological instruments for use on planet earth, which are explainable if the earth is spherical, but I'm asking how you explain them on flat earth.
You're acting just like a idiot parrot. If you can't answer any questions you ought to give it up because you're making yourself look foolish.
Ha ha...who's the idiot parrot, vomiting back the atheist paradigm of round moving earth against the teachings of the Church.
Flat-earthers are in a disarray of disagreement when it comes to basic physical mechanical properties of matter and our world.
So what? That makes atheists right?
They can't agree on east or west, north or south, or on whether there is an equator on earth. They claim that Polaris (north star) has bee seen from 23 degrees south of the equator but can't provide any examples of where or when that was. They show the sun and moon hovering under their "dome" but can't describe what keeps them there or what makes them move, or how the sun leaves the daytime sky at night when the stars become visible, or why the stars are not visible in the daytime.
This is why Hillary could be elected president, because there are too many stupid people who can vote out there.
Wouldn't vote for her or her trash evil counterpart for anything in the world.
.
-
The earth can be a globe and motionless with the sun and planets revolving around it no problem
No, it can't because...gravity! You are hamstrung by your own model. Feel free to attempt to refute this.
-
The earth can be a globe and motionless with the sun and planets revolving around it, no problem!
No, it can't because...gravity! You are hamstrung by your own model. Feel free to attempt to refute this.
No, I'm not hamstrung by anything, even by my own model...........
Refutation:
The earth can stand alone, motionless, with the entire universe turning around it, and it all works out exactly the same mathematically compared to the earth spinning on its axis, revolving around the sun with the sun and solar system moving through the Milky Way galaxy, with the MWG moving through deep space in one, two, three or more different manners.
The purpose and function of gravity is to keep the multiple bodies in orbit which are captured there, such as the several planets of our solar system around the sun, and the various moons that orbit several planets. There is apparently no physical limit to the number of bodies that can orbit one or each other all at the same time, since as far as we have been able to ascertain, the existence of one or more such satellites consumes nothing of energy or potential from the central body about which they rotate, something like it is for magnets and magnetism. If not for such phenomena as solar wind and impacts by asteroids or perhaps cosmic dust, this would constitute perpetual motion!
Even Einstein is on record saying that there is no way to distinguish absolute movement or non-movement of any object in the entire universe, because motion is always relative to some other object. IOW there is no such thing as absolute motion. That all motion is relative does not deny the possibility of some object being absolutely stationary, but he believed it would never be possible to judge whether it is or not. This presumes, of course, that there is no stationary point of reference against which relative motion can be ascertained and thereby determine whether a given object (in this case earth) is stationary or in motion.
I was going to say something else but for now, I'll give you a chance to catch up.............
-
I'm not going to keep fixing your sloppy posts, happenby.
Go back and properly format THIS ONE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=550&#p9) or I'm going to ignore it.
-
In addition to THIS POST (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=560&#p1), I really ought to point out that in addition to the universal force of gravitation affecting the bodies of the immediate solar system, there is also the conglomerate effect of the rest of the universe on every body in the same solar system.
This might seem to be an overwhelmingly complex problem since there is so many points of matter in so many directions, but it's really not that complicated. However, due caution must be exercised in the estimation of the various and sundry vectors involved. It is more convenient to group areas together that constitute a combined force, and treat them as one vector rather than thousands or even more.
Furthermore, there has been a lot of fur flying over the point of the sun orbiting the earth, saying that's impossible since the sun is so enormously heavier (some number of tens of thousands of times) than the earth -- that obviously the earth must orbit the more prominent mass of the sun. But this is not the case, when all is considered. The sun indeed CAN orbit the earth, even without some miraculous and otherwise unnatural intervention by a supernatural entity. Once again, the long distance effect of the entire universe must be taken into account before anyone leaps to a premature conclusion!
-
Here is a web page with a video near the bottom that shows time lapse photos of earth, from about 12,000 miles elevation -- you can see the whole planet and it's spherical!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3754717/Will-world-END-month-Conspiracy-theorists-claim-Planet-X-collision-course-Earth.html
Planet Earth Captured by the Russian Electro-L Camera
The clouds are MOVING and the shadows and highlights of the sun move over the oceans very realistically. There is no hole at the North Pole and no ice wall around Antarctica.
-
Here is a web page with a video near the bottom that shows time lapse photos of earth, from about 12,000 miles elevation -- you can see the whole planet and it's spherical!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3754717/Will-world-END-month-Conspiracy-theorists-claim-Planet-X-collision-course-Earth.html
Planet Earth Captured by the Russian Electro-L Camera
The clouds are MOVING and the shadows and highlights of the sun move over the oceans very realistically. There is no hole at the North Pole and no ice wall around Antarctica.
Today the video on the page above is gone.
But I searched and found this 4 year-old Daily Mail page featuring this topic (from May, 2012):
Video: Earth, by Electro-L [Click on the following link to watch the time-lapse video]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2142884/Earth-Stunning-picture-Russian-weather-satellite-shows-definitive-image-planet.html
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/11/article-2142884-130A18C4000005DC-11_964x700.jpg)
[Obviously, the picture above is an artist's composite rendition of the satellite with earth in the background, so we can get an idea of what it looks like in orbit. Speaking of orbit, the Electro-L hangs in space in a geosynchronous orbit, that is, not moving with respect to earth, so it can take time exposures as if it were mounted on a tripod -- a 22,000 mile tall tripod!]
This is THE definitive image of planet Earth:
Satellite captures all of our globe in one stunning, 121million-megapixel shot
By EDDIE WRENN FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 05:46 EST, 11 May 2012 | UPDATED: 06:15 EST, 12 May 2012
e-mail
173
View comments
Hanging in space, our beautiful blue planet has never been seen more clearly.
This is Planet Earth, seen from 36,000km [22,000 miles] above the surface, with the rich deep blues of the sea contrasting with the sharp outlines of land, as white clouds scurry across the skies.
The image was taken by the Electro-L, Russia's latest weather satellite, and unlike other images of our planet, it was taken in one single shot, at a massive resolution of 121 million megapixels.
Most images by NASA and other agencies are taken by stitching many images together, so it is rare to find such a high-definition image of our beautiful planet in one single shot.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/11/article-2142884-130A0F22000005DC-879_964x959.jpg)
The blue oasis we call home: Earth is photographed with a high-definition 121 megapixel camera - creating the sharpest image of our planet yet.
The satellite captures this kind of stunning image every half-hour as it monitors our weather and, if strange weather phenomenon is noted, the Russian operators can remotely command the satellite to take images every 10 minutes.
RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next
The image, in which each pixel represents 1 km, uses a combination of visible and near-infrared wavelengths, so that vegetation shows up in red, rather than the green you might expect.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2142884/Earth-Stunning-picture-Russian-weather-satellite-shows-definitive-image-planet.html#ixzz4IGZ9kOIZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Cosmas Indiocoplestes author of Christian Topography was a Catholic Monk in the 6th century who adamantly insisted that earth is flat and that those in the end times have to believe it to save their souls.
Now this is an intersting proposition, isn't it?
Here is a priest (who outranks a monk BTW) on the same topic:
We Catholics are often accused of being completely intolerant. Generally the accusations run along lines like these: We claim that we are right; in fact we admit that we are right. All others are wrong, and we let them know that we think they are wrong. We want to jam our opinions down the throat of everyone else who does not hold our opinions. In our turn we will pay no attention to the opinions and views of non-Catholics...
But we are intolerant?
If by that you mean that we believe that there is such a thing as a positive difference between religious truth and religious error, religious right and religious wrong, I'm afraid we are intolerant. But if by intolerant you mean that we make life difficult for those who disagree with us, I do not think that your accusation is according to the facts.
I do not believe however that it is possible for any honest man to be tolerant where truth and error are concerned. An astronomer whose students include a fellow who is convinced that the world is flat as a dinner dish and another who cries out that the sun moves around the earth, not the earth around the sun, will hardly be likely to be tolerant of these two fellows' ridiculous notions...
You send your children to school in order that they may shed their childish and heretical ideas about arithmetic and geography. If an accountant devised and practiced a bookkeeping method by which two and two are made to add up to five, he would soon find himself facing a highly intolerant law court.
One is not tolerant in the sense that he grants as fact the fantasies of the little boy who insists that the moon is made of green cheese; but one is -- one should be -- kind.
Any lurking sedes might be pleased to know this "Letter" has a 1949 Imprimatur from +Joseph E. Ritter and a Nihil obstat from Censor Librorum, Fr. Innocentius Swoboda, O.F.M.
Did Christian Topography have an Imprimmatur??
.
Clearly the priest doesn't hear Church teaching because It has already declared that the earth is motionless and the sun goes around it. The Church has already made Her geocentric declaration back in the 1600's:
Due to the spread of the Copernican theory and complaints of theologians, the Holy Office in
1633 condemned the following propositions and explained why they are false:
I. The sun is the center of the world and completely immovable by local motion.
II. The earth is not the center of the world, not immovable, but moves according to the
whole of itself, and also with a diurnal motion.
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;"
The heliocentric model, indoctrinated into society for the last 500 years or so, is clearly against Church teaching. So, the priest you cited is simply wrong.
-
Compasses can only work on a flat earth. When you say you cannot have a radially magnetized disk, you seem to be suggesting that there is no depth to the earth.
Are you in possession of a magnet that's a flat disk, which has a north pole in the center and south pole all around the perimeter?
I've never seen one nor heard of one. Maybe you've discovered something new!!
But to say that "compasses can only work on a flat earth" is patently false. If they can work on a model of a spherical earth, they can work on the real thing. And they can. A solid ball of iron can be magnetized to have opposite poles on the top and on the bottom.
But a solid flat disc cannot be so magnetized, without a gaping HOLE in the center. For the earth to have that format the hole would have to be many hundreds of miles in diameter, and it would have to extend all the way to the bottom of the earth's depth. None of the flat-earth images you have provided include such an essential detail, therefore they are at LEAST incorrect on one major aspect. They're probably incorrect entirely.
Sorry, the compass cannot work on a globe because it cannot point to such a north without tilting; compasses cannot tilt and still operate. You are simply parroting stuff you're reading that is next phase of topic. It would help tremendously if you would start with basics like curvature or lack thereof because we are getting into fields that can better be demonstrated when you have either proven or disproven that the earth is not a ball.
-
Compasses can only work on a flat earth. When you say you cannot have a radially magnetized disk, you seem to be suggesting that there is no depth to the earth.
Are you in possession of a magnet that's a flat disk, which has a north pole in the center and south pole all around the perimeter?
I've never seen one nor heard of one. Maybe you've discovered something new!!
But to say that "compasses can only work on a flat earth" is patently false. If they can work on a model of a spherical earth, they can work on the real thing. And they can. A solid ball of iron can be magnetized to have opposite poles on the top and on the bottom.
But a solid flat disc cannot be so magnetized, without a gaping HOLE in the center. For the earth to have that format the hole would have to be many hundreds of miles in diameter, and it would have to extend all the way to the bottom of the earth's depth. None of the flat-earth images you have provided include such an essential detail, therefore they are at LEAST incorrect on one major aspect. They're probably incorrect entirely.
Sorry, the compass cannot work on a globe because it cannot point to such a north without tilting; compasses cannot tilt and still operate. You are simply parroting stuff you're reading that is next phase of topic. It would help tremendously if you would start with basics like curvature or lack thereof because we are getting into fields that can better be demonstrated when you have either proven or disproven that the earth is not a ball.
Compasses don't stop working on a globe just because someone like you says they don't work. They do work, and you're wrong.
The compass isn't "tilting" when it's held level on the surface of the spherical earth.
Are you trying to be stupid?
If you'd like to see a moving image of the spherical earth go here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2142884/Earth-Stunning-picture-Russian-weather-satellite-shows-definitive-image-planet.html).
Compasses work just fine on a globe. :facepalm:
-
Heliocentrists claim the ball-Earth is perpetually spinning on its axis at a mind-numbing 1,038 miles per hour, or 19 miles per second, and somehow people, animals, buildings, oceans, and other surface phenomena can stick to the under-side of the spinning ball without falling or flying off. Take a ride on the “Spinner” at your local amusement park, however, and notice how the faster it spins, the more you are pushed away from the center of spin, not towards it. Even if the centripetal (inward pulling) force of gravity did exist, which it does not, the centrifugal (outward pushing) force of the ball-Earth’s supposed 19 mile per second spin would have to be overcome in relation to the size of the earth by a force that would crush everything on earth to dust.
Major truth here.
I'm sure it will be overlooked by Neil.
You won't find me taking issue with geocentrism, so don't play the straw man routine.
Geocentrism has absolutely nothing to do with flat-earthism. They are independent topics.
This is almost laughable, but with the modern geocentrist having gobbled up the heliocentric ball earth without having proven curvature for such, they show themselves still indoctrinated or...<gasp> shills. Not saying either way, but it is well known that all ancient civilizations taught the earth was flat and geocentric and with heliocentrism also proven a full out lie, it becomes clear the two are inseparable.
The earth can be a globe and motionless with the sun and planets revolving around it no problem, and even a Foucault pendulum can operate the same way as we see it do in various venues all over the planet.
The Foucault pendulum is another distraction. It has already been proven a farce as it has failed in so many experiments to continue to operate. Shenanigans keeping the swing going and even going the right direction, are myriad. The powers that be just pretend that isn't true and carry on, a tactic we are all familiar with. Let me ask: How can you know the earth is moving or not by staring at a swinging object? Because they tell you that the movement of that object proves earth is moving? <rolling eyes> If that is all the proof you need for something like this, its no wonder you refuse to delve. You're satisfied with the ridiculous. And if it can also prove the earth is stationary, or that it can operate on a stationary earth, what good is it to point it out?
But a Foucault pendulum could not operate as we can see it does, if the earth were flat.
But you're probably uninformed regarding the pendulum because flat-earthers stay away from that like it was Kryptonite or Plutonium! :tinfoil:
I don't stay away from it, its been a joke for a long long time. Holding up the Foucault Pendulum and saying it proves earth is moving or even not flat, is preposterous.
If we are going to discuss flat earth, lets discuss flat earth. Can you prove the earth curves commensurate with a 25,000 mile circuмference globe? When you can do that and not point to finicky swinging objects or maybe even twirling toilet water, or whatever else doesn't have anything to do with the question at hand, we aren't going to get far. If truth is the goal, lets get to the answer. All experiments official, amateur and in between have only proven earth to be a plane. Please show any proofs for curvature. Or accept the evidence as it has been provided.
-
Compasses can only work on a flat earth. When you say you cannot have a radially magnetized disk, you seem to be suggesting that there is no depth to the earth.
Are you in possession of a magnet that's a flat disk, which has a north pole in the center and south pole all around the perimeter?
I've never seen one nor heard of one. Maybe you've discovered something new!!
But to say that "compasses can only work on a flat earth" is patently false. If they can work on a model of a spherical earth, they can work on the real thing. And they can. A solid ball of iron can be magnetized to have opposite poles on the top and on the bottom.
But a solid flat disc cannot be so magnetized, without a gaping HOLE in the center. For the earth to have that format the hole would have to be many hundreds of miles in diameter, and it would have to extend all the way to the bottom of the earth's depth. None of the flat-earth images you have provided include such an essential detail, therefore they are at LEAST incorrect on one major aspect. They're probably incorrect entirely.
Sorry, the compass cannot work on a globe because it cannot point to such a north without tilting; compasses cannot tilt and still operate. You are simply parroting stuff you're reading that is next phase of topic. It would help tremendously if you would start with basics like curvature or lack thereof because we are getting into fields that can better be demonstrated when you have either proven or disproven that the earth is not a ball.
Compasses don't stop working on a globe just because someone like you says they don't work. They do work, and you're wrong.
The compass isn't "tilting" when it's held level on the surface of the spherical earth.
Are you trying to be stupid?
No sir, I'm not trying to be stupid. If you hold level a compass at the equator, the needle will not point to the north pole. If you hold a compass anywhere on a globe model earth, the needle will NEVER point to the north pole, but will ALWAYS point out somewhere in deep space and the needle will more often be pointing in every other direction but north.
If you'd like to see a moving image of the spherical earth go here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2142884/Earth-Stunning-picture-Russian-weather-satellite-shows-definitive-image-planet.html).
Compasses work just fine on a globe. :facepalm:
Oh my globe! That picture is a joke. It is as fake as a three dollar bill. The sizes of the continents is completely inconsistent with other pictures NASA provides, the colors are an outrage, the curve is way off since NASA insists earth bulges at the center or is pear shaped and this does not. What about this picture is consistent with truth, or even consistent with other tales NASA tells?
-
You've done it again: mixed your responses with mine. I thought this was all my post, at first sight.
Gravity has all but been discarded beyond the lipstick brand of pop science shoved down our throats by atheists.
Can you post an image of "lipstick brand of pop science?"
I guess you're going to pass on the image of lipstick brand pop science.
I can't blame you for that one.
Serious discussions have gone on for years driving scientists into exodus-from the old gravity paradigm because it doesn't work. All that so called pulling, at 1000s of different rates, are proven a patchwork of lies to explain away nonsense like water sticking to the outside of a round object.
Why do you have a problem with differing magnitudes of gravity over various places on earth? They don't vary by much -- it takes a very sensitive scale to detect the difference.
The effects vary quite a bit.
So -- what's the largest variation in weight measurement you can cite? Is it more than one percent?
If so, where was it observed and when, and by whom, and what was the weights and what was the object weighed? If you don't have an answer, then you don't have any point. The onus is on you.
Whole oceans sit wrapped around a ball as children jump freely next to it? How does gravity work? Whole planets are carried about, some in stable patterns while others vary in orbits, yet, a small dog can jump in circles back over his own body with little effort. For gravity to work, it must be a constant. Gravity remains theory admitted by all of science. It is contradictory and every attempt to identify or qualify it has been a failure. They simply pronounce gravity the cause of all sorts of things, including water draining directions, focault's pendulum, people weighing what they do and planets orbiting. The differences in these things is so vast, this answer, gravity, has become a religion rather than science.
Such a thing has never been accomplished on any level yet everyone believes it about earth.
What experiment would make you happy to accomplish water sticking to the outside of a round [spherical?] object? It's a bit challenging to form a spheroid in space large enough to develop the attraction due to gravity sufficient to make water?adhere like the seas do to earth. Have you heard of someone trying to do that? It's a bit disingenuous to hurl calumny at a topic lest a virtually impossible feat would be performed. If someone were to go to the moon and drop a bottle of water, you'd say he didn't really go to the moon. Or you'd say that was a BOTTLE of water, not "water."
The problem with water sticking to the outside of a ball is that it is contradictory to all known experiments. All things must be demonstrated with some level of proof. There is zero proof water sticks to the outside of any ball, ever. There is zero proof water surface holds in a curve. What is unreasonable about what I've said in this paragraph?
I asked you a question and you answer with another question!!
The adherence of oceans AND the earth's atmosphere to the surface of earth is a very simple concept verifiable by calculation and the application of the law of gravity to the distance between the aggregate mass of the earth's bulk and each particle of water and air. It can be approximated with simple algebra but takes calculus to get it accurate.
You say it's "contradictory to all known experiments," but that is false. There are numerous experiments with large, heavy objects and their relative attraction to each other as expected to happen with the miniscule attraction due to gravity. That is an adequate "level of proof" that you're ignoring, above!
Water, sand, wood chips, alcohol, or any other material would equally "stick" (the proper word is adhere) to any ball of sufficient mass and density, due to the attraction of gravity, which is directly proportional to the relative masses and indirectly proportional to the square of the distance between them. It works on paper and it works empirically. What more do you want??!!
All I'm saying is, people are lying to you. And you twist that into a rebuttal saying I'm in denial. I believe you know that what I'm saying is at least interesting, if not true. Otherwise, you would not have chosen the absurd comparison above and then sling insults to try to prove that you've not been indoctrinated. A reasonable person goes and checks prior to slinging mud. I've done nothing to harm you, said nothing unreasonable, just something you aren't familiar with.
I'm quite familiar with it. What amazes me is that there are actually people who are dug into the denial of the obvious. And when I try to clarify their error and point the way to reality, they get all huffy and nonsensical, which see.
Such nonsensical teachings are no longer acceptable because people are waking up. Gravity only lives where indoctrination remains unchallenged. Please investigate for yourself. But be honest and search both sides for truth, don't just swallow the standard indoctrination without seriously checking.
The onus is on you to provide any experiments that show gravity is not real.
Not really. The onus is on you to prove gravity.
Yes, really. There are numerous experiments for hundreds of years showing how gravity works. Do you want a list, or what?
How is it that gravity can pull up a toy balloon and cannot pull up a brick?
The brick has the same gravity force on it that the toy balloon has. But the brick is heavier than the air it displaces while the balloon is lighter than the air it displaces.
You know, Archimedes discovered the basis of buoyancy over 2,000 years ago. It's a pretty funny story, actually. He was taking a bath in water when...
If I throw up a book in the air, why doesn’t it go on up? That book goes up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air.
It's true the book is heavier than the air it displaces, otherwise it would have floated away before you bothered to throw it. So why can't you throw the balloon into the air like you can the book??
That is the only reason. If I cut the string of a toy balloon, it rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle.
Why would it slow down and stop rising at a certain height? Why would it begin to settle? I've seen balloons just keep rising and rising. I made hot air balloons as a child with birthday candles and dry cleaner bags. They just kept going and going till they disappeared into the night sky, and that was with illumination (the candles burning).
I take a brick and a feather. I blow the feather. Yonder it goes. Finally, it begins to settle and comes down. The brick goes up as far as my force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air. Different matter has different density and therefore different weight. That's all.
So why don't you describe what happens in a vacuum, without air resistance? Which can you throw further in a vacuum, a feather or a brick?
Which falls faster: a pebble or a cannonball ...... from the Leaning Tower of Pisa?
You may as well state that the sun is an illusion or that water isn't wet or that earthquakes are entirely imaginary.
I will never do that. What I have shown is not illogical. The rotating, wobbling, whirling, barreling ball earth jetting through space is what's illogical.
Please knock off the straw man garbage.
I have never said one single word in support of a moving, spinning, whirling earth.
So you only confuse the discussion and muck up the works by repeating this junk.
And now we've actually caught NASA lying. They can't prove any of their theories or prove their lies about going to the moon, or about taking pictures of ball earth, let alone prove a superspeeding round earth. No, I do not hold the absurd, so I would never say such things as you suggest.
Ok, this has definitely gone out of control. Please ask one thing and I'll try to answer. Let me ask you one thing too: Show proof of curvature.
-
I'm not going to keep fixing your sloppy posts, happenby.
Go back and properly format THIS ONE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=550&#p9) or I'm going to ignore it.
My apologies. Maybe we can limit the size or scope of posts, it helps.
-
Cosmas Indiocoplestes author of Christian Topography was a Catholic Monk in the 6th century who adamantly insisted that earth is flat and that those in the end times have to believe it to save their souls.
Now this is an intersting proposition, isn't it?
Here is a priest (who outranks a monk BTW) on the same topic:
We Catholics are often accused of being completely intolerant. Generally the accusations run along lines like these: We claim that we are right; in fact we admit that we are right. All others are wrong, and we let them know that we think they are wrong. We want to jam our opinions down the throat of everyone else who does not hold our opinions. In our turn we will pay no attention to the opinions and views of non-Catholics...
But we are intolerant?
If by that you mean that we believe that there is such a thing as a positive difference between religious truth and religious error, religious right and religious wrong, I'm afraid we are intolerant. But if by intolerant you mean that we make life difficult for those who disagree with us, I do not think that your accusation is according to the facts.
I do not believe however that it is possible for any honest man to be tolerant where truth and error are concerned. An astronomer whose students include a fellow who is convinced that the world is flat as a dinner dish and another who cries out that the sun moves around the earth, not the earth around the sun, will hardly be likely to be tolerant of these two fellows' ridiculous notions...
You send your children to school in order that they may shed their childish and heretical ideas about arithmetic and geography. If an accountant devised and practiced a bookkeeping method by which two and two are made to add up to five, he would soon find himself facing a highly intolerant law court.
One is not tolerant in the sense that he grants as fact the fantasies of the little boy who insists that the moon is made of green cheese; but one is -- one should be -- kind.
Any lurking sedes might be pleased to know this "Letter" has a 1949 Imprimatur from +Joseph E. Ritter and a Nihil obstat from Censor Librorum, Fr. Innocentius Swoboda, O.F.M.
Did Christian Topography have an Imprimmatur??
Clearly the priest doesn't hear Church teaching because It has already declared that the earth is motionless and the sun goes around it. The Church has already made Her geocentric declaration back in the 1600's:
Due to the spread of the Copernican theory and complaints of theologians, the Holy Office in
1633 condemned the following propositions and explained why they are false:
I. The sun is the center of the world and completely immovable by local motion.
II. The earth is not the center of the world, not immovable, but moves according to the
whole of itself, and also with a diurnal motion.
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;"
The heliocentric model, indoctrinated into society for the last 500 years or so, is clearly against Church teaching. So, the priest you cited is simply wrong.
You are correct!
I wondered if anyone would catch that. Congratulations! To be honest, I entertained the idea of excluding the part about the earth's motion, but I would have had to change several words for plural case and such, and it would look rather suspicious. So I left it in, even though I was really only interested in "a fellow who is convinced that the world is flat as a dinner dish" and "the little boy who insists that the moon is made of green cheese."
In the booklet I quoted, Fr. Lord is trying to impress a Protestant with how broad-minded the Church is. You might find the following quote even more interesting:
In recent years we in America have come to know the fear of a disunited country, as communism sought to win over loyal American citizens to its practices and beliefs. We call such an effort subversive. We do not hesitate to interdict it.
Catholics believe that Christ did not mean the world to be split into discordant sects. He gave, or so we believe, one faith. He prayed that the human race should be united in one fold under one shepherd. He must have foreseen the religious strife that follows a splitting of His Church into embattled groups.
The modern world to a large extent maintains religious peace by the pretense that no religion is really essential and that all religions are equally worthy...[sic.] since, in a strange sort of way, all are equally without authority or the approval of God.
Catholics do not believe this.
So when a land is solidly Catholic, when its people kneel at one altar, worship one Christ, follow one code, practice one cult, offer one sacrifice, and know the union in the Mystical Body of Christ, Catholics dread to see division, disunion, the separation into discordant sects, and the shattering of the sheepfold through the introduction of jangling and jarring shepherds.
At least the stand is something that is reasonable and not too difficult to understand.
This was just 14 years before Vat.II. Since that time, today we have discord all over the world even in so-called Catholic dioceses. "Jangling and jarring shepherds" are quite the NORM. Today, the Vatican is in chaos because of divisions. Now, in 2016, we have a pope, Francis, who is a socialist!
However, is it not strongly implied in the first quote, above, regarding the earth's motion, that D.A. Lord, S.J., believes that anyone who says the earth does not orbit the sun but rather the sun revolves around the earth, harbors "heretical ideas" that need to be "shed" by learning the truth in school? When he says "about... geography," did he perhaps have in mind "cosmology?"
ETA: Maybe we can limit the size or scope of posts
If there were any way of making what I had to say in the post above shorter, believe me, I would have done it.
-
Compasses can only work on a flat earth. When you say you cannot have a radially magnetized disk, you seem to be suggesting that there is no depth to the earth.
Are you in possession of a magnet that's a flat disk, which has a north pole in the center and south pole all around the perimeter?
I've never seen one nor heard of one. Maybe you've discovered something new!!
But to say that "compasses can only work on a flat earth" is patently false. If they can work on a model of a spherical earth, they can work on the real thing. And they can. A solid ball of iron can be magnetized to have opposite poles on the top and on the bottom.
But a solid flat disc cannot be so magnetized, without a gaping HOLE in the center. For the earth to have that format the hole would have to be many hundreds of miles in diameter, and it would have to extend all the way to the bottom of the earth's depth. None of the flat-earth images you have provided include such an essential detail, therefore they are at LEAST incorrect on one major aspect. They're probably incorrect entirely.
Sorry, the compass cannot work on a globe because it cannot point to such a north without tilting; compasses cannot tilt and still operate. You are simply parroting stuff you're reading that is next phase of topic. It would help tremendously if you would start with basics like curvature or lack thereof because we are getting into fields that can better be demonstrated when you have either proven or disproven that the earth is not a ball.
Compasses don't stop working on a globe just because someone like you says they don't work. They do work, and you're wrong.
The compass isn't "tilting" when it's held level on the surface of the spherical earth.
Are you trying to be stupid?
No sir, I'm not trying to be stupid. If you hold level a compass at the equator, the needle will not point to the north pole.
Yes, it will.
If you hold a compass anywhere on a globe model earth, the needle will NEVER point to the north pole,
Yes, it will.
but will ALWAYS point out somewhere in deep space and the needle will more often be pointing in every other direction but north.
No, it won't.
If you'd like to see a moving image of the spherical earth go here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2142884/Earth-Stunning-picture-Russian-weather-satellite-shows-definitive-image-planet.html).
Compasses work just fine on a globe. :facepalm:
Oh my globe! That picture is a joke. It is as fake as a three dollar bill. The sizes of the continents is [are] completely inconsistent with other pictures NASA provides, the colors are an outrage, the curve is way off since NASA insists earth bulges at the center or is pear shaped and this does not. What about this picture is consistent with truth, or even consistent with other tales NASA tells?
What's fake about it? Did you watch the time-lapse video with the clouds moving over several days that never look the same from day to day? Did you see how the north pole is illuminated round the clock? Did you notice that the reddish orange color indicates vegetation which we see as green, but the pics show orange red because of the wavelength sensors tuned to track weather patterns, not tuned to show accurate color rendition for our convenience? A "doctored" image could make all that green instead, but that would be tampered with -- this way you get what the satellite shot without any adjustments made. It's the real deal.
The "bulge" NASA refers to is too small for us to notice. Each pixel in this photo covers a square kilometer, and the bulge measures less than 20 meters (50 times less noticeable).
The sizes of the continents are precisely what they are on any accurate Rand McNalley Globe you'll ever see.
You are all wrong about the compass. Compasses point north when held level on the surface of the spherical earth, while you say they point off into the sky. Of course, it's a TANGENT line at that place on the globe, which does go off into space eventually, after hundreds of miles, but not in the immediate vicinity where the compass is!
-
If the earth in flat:
How to man-made satellites work? I assume you will say that there are no such things and that NASA is faking them all, but then how does my next door neighbor's satellite TV work?
Why are different constellations visible in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere? Presumably, if the earth were flat, everyone would look up and see the same constellations. Or, if the constellations did vary depending on where you are on a flat earth, Australia and South America should not be able to see the same constellations as they are on opposite ends of a flat surface; yet they do view the same constellations.
-
Cosmas Indiocoplestes author of Christian Topography was a Catholic Monk in the 6th century who adamantly insisted that earth is flat and that those in the end times have to believe it to save their souls.
Now this is an intersting proposition, isn't it?
Here is a priest (who outranks a monk BTW) on the same topic:
We Catholics are often accused of being completely intolerant. Generally the accusations run along lines like these: We claim that we are right; in fact we admit that we are right. All others are wrong, and we let them know that we think they are wrong. We want to jam our opinions down the throat of everyone else who does not hold our opinions. In our turn we will pay no attention to the opinions and views of non-Catholics...
But we are intolerant?
If by that you mean that we believe that there is such a thing as a positive difference between religious truth and religious error, religious right and religious wrong, I'm afraid we are intolerant. But if by intolerant you mean that we make life difficult for those who disagree with us, I do not think that your accusation is according to the facts.
I do not believe however that it is possible for any honest man to be tolerant where truth and error are concerned. An astronomer whose students include a fellow who is convinced that the world is flat as a dinner dish and another who cries out that the sun moves around the earth, not the earth around the sun, will hardly be likely to be tolerant of these two fellows' ridiculous notions...
You send your children to school in order that they may shed their childish and heretical ideas about arithmetic and geography. If an accountant devised and practiced a bookkeeping method by which two and two are made to add up to five, he would soon find himself facing a highly intolerant law court.
One is not tolerant in the sense that he grants as fact the fantasies of the little boy who insists that the moon is made of green cheese; but one is -- one should be -- kind.
Any lurking sedes might be pleased to know this "Letter" has a 1949 Imprimatur from +Joseph E. Ritter and a Nihil obstat from Censor Librorum, Fr. Innocentius Swoboda, O.F.M.
Did Christian Topography have an Imprimmatur??
Clearly the priest doesn't hear Church teaching because It has already declared that the earth is motionless and the sun goes around it. The Church has already made Her geocentric declaration back in the 1600's:
Due to the spread of the Copernican theory and complaints of theologians, the Holy Office in
1633 condemned the following propositions and explained why they are false:
I. The sun is the center of the world and completely immovable by local motion.
II. The earth is not the center of the world, not immovable, but moves according to the
whole of itself, and also with a diurnal motion.
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;"
The heliocentric model, indoctrinated into society for the last 500 years or so, is clearly against Church teaching. So, the priest you cited is simply wrong.
You are correct!
I wondered if anyone would catch that. Congratulations! To be honest, I entertained the idea of excluding the part about the earth's motion, but I would have had to change several words for plural case and such, and it would look rather suspicious. So I left it in, even though I was really only interested in "a fellow who is convinced that the world is flat as a dinner dish" and "the little boy who insists that the moon is made of green cheese."
In the booklet I quoted, Fr. Lord is trying to impress a Protestant with how broad-minded the Church is. You might find the following quote even more interesting:
In recent years we in America have come to know the fear of a disunited country, as communism sought to win over loyal American citizens to its practices and beliefs. We call such an effort subversive. We do not hesitate to interdict it.
Catholics believe that Christ did not mean the world to be split into discordant sects. He gave, or so we believe, one faith. He prayed that the human race should be united in one fold under one shepherd. He must have foreseen the religious strife that follows a splitting of His Church into embattled groups.
The modern world to a large extent maintains religious peace by the pretense that no religion is really essential and that all religions are equally worthy...[sic.] since, in a strange sort of way, all are equally without authority or the approval of God.
Catholics do not believe this.
So when a land is solidly Catholic, when its people kneel at one altar, worship one Christ, follow one code, practice one cult, offer one sacrifice, and know the union in the Mystical Body of Christ, Catholics dread to see division, disunion, the separation into discordant sects, and the shattering of the sheepfold through the introduction of jangling and jarring shepherds.
At least the stand is something that is reasonable and not too difficult to understand.
This was just 14 years before Vat.II. Since that time, today we have discord all over the world even in so-called Catholic dioceses. "Jangling and jarring shepherds" are quite the NORM. Today, the Vatican is in chaos because of divisions. Now, in 2016, we have a pope, Francis, who is a socialist!
However, is it not strongly implied in the first quote, above, regarding the earth's motion, that D.A. Lord, S.J., believes that anyone who says the earth does not orbit the sun but rather the sun revolves around the earth, harbors "heretical ideas" that need to be "shed" by learning the truth in school? When he says "about... geography," did he perhaps have in mind "cosmology?"
ETA: Maybe we can limit the size or scope of posts
If there were any way of making what I had to say in the post above shorter, believe me, I would have done it.
Maybe he did have cosmology in mind, the two are different but inseparable. Both are God's creation and speak to defend each other's realities.
-
If the earth in flat:
How to man-made satellites work? I assume you will say that there are no such things and that NASA is faking them all, but then how does my next door neighbor's satellite TV work?
Why are different constellations visible in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere? Presumably, if the earth were flat, everyone would look up and see the same constellations. Or, if the constellations did vary depending on where you are on a flat earth, Australia and South America should not be able to see the same constellations as they are on opposite ends of a flat surface; yet they do view the same constellations.
Prior to "satellites", towers did the job. We are all aware that they still do. They erect towers ad nauseam, so why would there be satellites? The idea of that much junk is floatin' around above is silly really. NASA claims there are 30,000 or so up there, yet we never see thousands of satellites, nor does the coverage area suggest anything of the kind. And the satellites NASA pictures for us look like aluminum foil and curtain rods. None of those mirrors ever breaks off? And how is it that with all that stuff supposedly up there, nothing at all ever comes down? Ever? Again, there are millions of miles of capable cables crossing the bottom of the sea. Why bother with such a huge expense when satellites are there? If there were satellites, everyone could get all channels and all service all the time. And they don't.
We do look up and see the same constellations, albeit from different perspectives. The ones lowest in the sky are the only ones not viewable from opposite sides, but that follows when one considers that we can't see the next town from where we are because it is near or on the same level as us. The lower the constellation in the sky, the less likely it is viewable from the opposite side. Yet all constellations are viewable from as low as 23 degrees from either side.
-
Cosmas Indiocoplestes author of Christian Topography was a Catholic Monk in the 6th century who adamantly insisted that earth is flat and that those in the end times have to believe it to save their souls.
Now this is an intersting proposition, isn't it?
Here is a priest (who outranks a monk BTW) on the same topic:
We Catholics are often accused of being completely intolerant. Generally the accusations run along lines like these: We claim that we are right; in fact we admit that we are right. All others are wrong, and we let them know that we think they are wrong. We want to jam our opinions down the throat of everyone else who does not hold our opinions. In our turn we will pay no attention to the opinions and views of non-Catholics...
But we are intolerant?
If by that you mean that we believe that there is such a thing as a positive difference between religious truth and religious error, religious right and religious wrong, I'm afraid we are intolerant. But if by intolerant you mean that we make life difficult for those who disagree with us, I do not think that your accusation is according to the facts.
I do not believe however that it is possible for any honest man to be tolerant where truth and error are concerned. An astronomer whose students include a fellow who is convinced that the world is flat as a dinner dish and another who cries out that the sun moves around the earth, not the earth around the sun, will hardly be likely to be tolerant of these two fellows' ridiculous notions...
You send your children to school in order that they may shed their childish and heretical ideas about arithmetic and geography. If an accountant devised and practiced a bookkeeping method by which two and two are made to add up to five, he would soon find himself facing a highly intolerant law court.
One is not tolerant in the sense that he grants as fact the fantasies of the little boy who insists that the moon is made of green cheese; but one is -- one should be -- kind.
Any lurking sedes might be pleased to know this "Letter" has a 1949 Imprimatur from +Joseph E. Ritter and a Nihil obstat from Censor Librorum, Fr. Innocentius Swoboda, O.F.M.
Did Christian Topography have an Imprimmatur??
Clearly the priest doesn't hear Church teaching because It has already declared that the earth is motionless and the sun goes around it. The Church has already made Her geocentric declaration back in the 1600's:
Due to the spread of the Copernican theory and complaints of theologians, the Holy Office in
1633 condemned the following propositions and explained why they are false:
I. The sun is the center of the world and completely immovable by local motion.
II. The earth is not the center of the world, not immovable, but moves according to the
whole of itself, and also with a diurnal motion.
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;"
The heliocentric model, indoctrinated into society for the last 500 years or so, is clearly against Church teaching. So, the priest you cited is simply wrong.
You are correct!
I wondered if anyone would catch that. Congratulations! To be honest, I entertained the idea of excluding the part about the earth's motion, but I would have had to change several words for plural case and such, and it would look rather suspicious. So I left it in, even though I was really only interested in "a fellow who is convinced that the world is flat as a dinner dish" and "the little boy who insists that the moon is made of green cheese."
In the booklet I quoted, Fr. Lord is trying to impress a Protestant with how broad-minded the Church is. You might find the following quote even more interesting:
In recent years we in America have come to know the fear of a disunited country, as communism sought to win over loyal American citizens to its practices and beliefs. We call such an effort subversive. We do not hesitate to interdict it.
Catholics believe that Christ did not mean the world to be split into discordant sects. He gave, or so we believe, one faith. He prayed that the human race should be united in one fold under one shepherd. He must have foreseen the religious strife that follows a splitting of His Church into embattled groups.
The modern world to a large extent maintains religious peace by the pretense that no religion is really essential and that all religions are equally worthy...[sic.] since, in a strange sort of way, all are equally without authority or the approval of God.
Catholics do not believe this.
So when a land is solidly Catholic, when its people kneel at one altar, worship one Christ, follow one code, practice one cult, offer one sacrifice, and know the union in the Mystical Body of Christ, Catholics dread to see division, disunion, the separation into discordant sects, and the shattering of the sheepfold through the introduction of jangling and jarring shepherds.
At least the stand is something that is reasonable and not too difficult to understand.
This was just 14 years before Vat.II. Since that time, today we have discord all over the world even in so-called Catholic dioceses. "Jangling and jarring shepherds" are quite the NORM. Today, the Vatican is in chaos because of divisions. Now, in 2016, we have a pope, Francis, who is a socialist!
However, is it not strongly implied in the first quote, above, regarding the earth's motion, that D.A. Lord, S.J., believes that anyone who says the earth does not orbit the sun but rather the sun revolves around the earth, harbors "heretical ideas" that need to be "shed" by learning the truth in school? When he says "about... geography," did he perhaps have in mind "cosmology?"
ETA: Maybe we can limit the size or scope of posts
If there were any way of making what I had to say in the post above shorter, believe me, I would have done it.
Maybe he did have cosmology in mind, the two are different but inseparable. Both are God's creation and speak to defend each other's realities.
Yes, I was paying attention! Thanks for your brutal honesty, Neil Obstat. I always did love the play on the name and now I think I like the person behind it even better.
-
Oh my globe! That picture is a joke. It is as fake as a three dollar bill. The sizes of the continents is [are] completely inconsistent with other pictures NASA provides, the colors are an outrage, the curve is way off since NASA insists earth bulges at the center or is pear shaped and this does not. What about this picture is consistent with truth, or even consistent with other tales NASA tells?
It just occurred to me, perhaps you didn't notice that this Russian Electro-L camera satellite is poised above the Indian Ocean, so the continent on the left is Africa with Madagascar to the east. India hangs down in the middle with Sri Lanka south of that. Asia is on top with Eastern Europe on the top left, with the Arabian peninsula, Red Sea and Persian gulf prominent. China is top right. Finally, the Philippines on the right with Australia on the bottom right. Antarctica is out of view, as is the Arctic Ocean in the north. Perhaps a view from 100,000 miles would be able to see more of the poles, but not from only 22,000 mi.
The article says it's the "Northern hemisphere" but that's not true. It's right above the Equator, and it's over the Eastern hemisphere (as opposed to the Western hemisphere). It has about as much of the Southern hemisphere as it does the Northern.
Even if the Russians had a satellite above the Western hemisphere, they'd likely not publish the photos because we would say, "Look! They're spying on us!!"
If you were thinking it shows South America on the left and that's Greenland in the middle then of course the continents look like the wrong size.
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1078386!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg)
Perhaps you can appreciate this version with the color (orange) corrected (green)?
.
-
Oh my globe! That picture is a joke. It is as fake as a three dollar bill. The sizes of the continents is [are] completely inconsistent with other pictures NASA provides, the colors are an outrage, the curve is way off since NASA insists earth bulges at the center or is pear shaped and this does not. What about this picture is consistent with truth, or even consistent with other tales NASA tells?
It just occurred to me, perhaps you didn't notice that this Russian Electro-L camera satellite is poised above the Indian Ocean, so the continent on the left is Africa with Madagascar to the east. India hangs down in the middle with Sri Lanka south of that. Asia is on top with Eastern Europe on the top left, with the Arabian peninsula, Red Sea and Persian gulf prominent. China is top right. Finally, the Philippines on the right with Australia on the bottom right. Antarctica is out of view, as is the Arctic Ocean in the north. Perhaps a view from 100,000 miles would be able to see more of the poles, but not from only 22,000 mi.
The article says it's the "Northern hemisphere" but that's not true. It's right above the Equator, and it's over the Eastern hemisphere (as opposed to the Western hemisphere). It has about as much of the Southern hemisphere as it does the Northern.
Even if the Russians had a satellite above the Western hemisphere, they'd likely not publish the photos because we would say, "Look! They're spying on us!!"
If you were thinking it shows South America on the left and that's Greenland in the middle then of course the continents look like the wrong size.
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1078386!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg)
Perhaps you can appreciate this version with the color (orange) corrected (green)?
.
Haha! Yes, thank you, I'll take the green!
-
C'mon NASA!
-
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1078386!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg)
That photo is so fake it is absurd.
-
I just checked my local weather forecast from NOAA... you know, it's rather ironic that the predictions from the the satellite images are pretty damn accurate. :shocked:
-
I just checked my local weather forecast from NOAA... you know, it's rather ironic that the predictions from the the satellite images are pretty damn accurate. :shocked:
Oh, you mean the airplane images. Yes, its so funny they call them satellite images when they are taken from 10 or 15 miles up, not 22,000 miles away. The pictures have been taken from a distance much closer than what NASA claims.
-
I just checked my local weather forecast from NOAA... you know, it's rather ironic that the predictions from the the satellite images are pretty damn accurate. :shocked:
Oh, you mean the airplane images. Yes, its so funny they call them satellite images when they are taken from 10 or 15 miles up, not 22,000 miles away. The pictures have been taken from a distance much closer than what NASA claims.
Correct.
Here's a photo of NASA's SOFIA "satellite."
-
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1078386!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg)
That photo is so fake it is absurd.
What's fake about it?
Do you think that ocean has a different shape? Or do you think that's showing more than a piece of the Atlantic Ocean?
Did you go to the link I provided where you can watch hundreds of consecutive time-lapse photos from this Electro-L Russian satellite (22,000 miles high orbit) showing the clouds moving over the earth? There are no two cloud patterns that are the same.
Do you think that's fake too?
-
Maybe NASA is too cheap to produce a photo stream showing the entire earth in each frame, and maybe NASA used conglomerate photos and faked in the clouds, but when you criticize NASA for this deception on the basis that they didn't show a single image of a complete earth and they replicated cloud patterns, and therefore it's fake, here where I have provided a single image of the whole planet with no patchwork and no cloud manipulation -- all you have to say is it's "so fake it's absurd?"
Cat got your tongue all of a sudden?
-
Maybe NASA is too cheap to produce a photo stream showing the entire earth in each frame, and maybe NASA used conglomerate photos and faked in the clouds, but when you criticize NASA for this deception on the basis that they didn't show a single image of a complete earth and they replicated cloud patterns, and therefore it's fake, here where I have provided a single image of the whole planet with no patchwork and no cloud manipulation -- all you have to say is it's "so fake it's absurd?"
Cat got your tongue all of a sudden?
There are only a few reasons people think the earth is round. They think they've seen it in photos, videos and modeled on school desks. People now believe atheist scientists like Copernicus, Keplar and Newton must have known better than the Church Fathers because they've actually seen the ball with their own eyes. There is no other empirical proof for lay folk. You'd otherwise assume earth was flat and stationary from personal observation alone. That the sun's movement and distance can be measured with plain old white bread geometry. That water doesn't curve. That we don't feel movement. The fact that they lied about ANYTHING makes them suspect, but that they lied about EVERYTHING....photos, videos, moon, stars, Mars...? Yea, it makes all the difference that NASA fakes earth photos and paintings and spends billions of our dollars to give us CGI cartoons and rockets that go nowhere. But worse than the loss of our tax dollars is that the lies about our origins and creation are essential to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr because it is the backbone of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion. The people are at fault for becoming enslaved because they preferred to believe lies.
-
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1078386!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg)
That photo is so fake it is absurd.
What's fake about it?
Do you think that ocean has a different shape? Or do you think that's showing more than a piece of the Atlantic Ocean?
Did you go to the link I provided where you can watch hundreds of consecutive time-lapse photos from this Electro-L Russian satellite (22,000 miles high orbit) showing the clouds moving over the earth? There are no two cloud patterns that are the same.
Do you think that's fake too?
Will the real photo of earth please stand up?
-
Maybe NASA is too cheap to produce a photo stream showing the entire earth in each frame, and maybe NASA used conglomerate photos and faked in the clouds, but when you criticize NASA for this deception on the basis that they didn't show a single image of a complete earth and they replicated cloud patterns, and therefore it's fake, here where I have provided a single image of the whole planet with no patchwork and no cloud manipulation -- all you have to say is it's "so fake it's absurd?"
Cat got your tongue all of a sudden?
The clouds you keep mentioning are one of the things about it that CLEARLY identify it as fake.
You can go to your own zipcode and look at the cloud timelapses on weather.com right now. For example, here in Phoenix they change SO RAPIDLY that on the three-hour playback loops you can have a gigantic system that covers half the state of Arizona disappear in less than one 3-hour loop.
When you look at that ABSURD Electro-L timelapse the cloudcover of the ENTIRE EARTH BARELY CHANGES - and it's 24 hours long! No other commentary is necessary. It's FAKE.
-
Maybe NASA is too cheap to produce a photo stream showing the entire earth in each frame, and maybe NASA used conglomerate photos and faked in the clouds, but when you criticize NASA for this deception on the basis that they didn't show a single image of a complete earth and they replicated cloud patterns, and therefore it's fake, here where I have provided a single image of the whole planet with no patchwork and no cloud manipulation -- all you have to say is it's "so fake it's absurd?"
Cat got your tongue all of a sudden?
The clouds you keep mentioning are one of the things about it that CLEARLY identify it as fake.
You can go to your own zipcode and look at the cloud timelapses on weather.com right now. For example, here in Phoenix they change SO RAPIDLY that on the three-hour playback loops you can have a gigantic system that covers half the state of Arizona disappear in less than one 3-hour loop.
When you look at that ABSURD Electro-L timelapse the cloudcover of the ENTIRE EARTH BARELY CHANGES - and it's 24 hours long! No other commentary is necessary. It's FAKE.
Indeed. I have yet to see a twenty four hour, or even 1 hour cloud morphing video that even remotely looks real on a globe. They sometimes take real video of a small portion of the sky, use a go pro camera to bend the shot to insinuate a pretend curved horizon (which is sometimes mistakenly shown next to a straight line horizon elsewhere in the shot (see Felix Baumgartner photos). What a scream. Emperor NASA has no clothes.
-
I just checked my local weather forecast from NOAA... you know, it's rather ironic that the predictions from the the satellite images are pretty damn accurate. :shocked:
Oh, you mean the airplane images. Yes, its so funny they call them satellite images when they are taken from 10 or 15 miles up, not 22,000 miles away. The pictures have been taken from a distance much closer than what NASA claims.
Correct.
Here's a photo of NASA's SOFIA "satellite."
Bah ha ha ha! NASA should be like: :facepalm:
-
Scientific proof then comes down to this:
Bah ha ha ha! NASA should be like: :facepalm:
or this:
The clouds you keep mentioning are one of the things about it that CLEARLY identify it as fake.
You can go to your own zipcode and look at the cloud timelapses on weather.com right now. For example, here in Phoenix they change SO RAPIDLY that on the three-hour playback loops you can have a gigantic system that covers half the state of Arizona disappear in less than one 3-hour loop.
When you look at that ABSURD Electro-L timelapse the cloudcover of the ENTIRE EARTH BARELY CHANGES - and it's 24 hours long! No other commentary is necessary. It's FAKE.
When NASA's clouds don't measure up, you lock into the pretext that all clouds on a spherical earth are incredible, consequently any such photo showing clouds must be fake, BECAUSE it doesn't show the earth as if it were flat.
Why is it so hard for you to produce a photo of a flat earth? Maybe because all such images are fake? So is this scientific or is it just photo envy?
IOW, for you, the starting point is "the earth is flat." For you that's "science."
Anything showing the contrary is "fake." Because you've already decided the outcome.
-
You ought to tell Dutchsinse that he needs to reform his videos to reflect a flat earth instead!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/3mFv6v08VFI[/youtube]
He's just a YouTuber.
-
Scientific proof then comes down to this:
Bah ha ha ha! NASA should be like: :facepalm:
or this:
The clouds you keep mentioning are one of the things about it that CLEARLY identify it as fake.
You can go to your own zipcode and look at the cloud timelapses on weather.com right now. For example, here in Phoenix they change SO RAPIDLY that on the three-hour playback loops you can have a gigantic system that covers half the state of Arizona disappear in less than one 3-hour loop.
When you look at that ABSURD Electro-L timelapse the cloudcover of the ENTIRE EARTH BARELY CHANGES - and it's 24 hours long! No other commentary is necessary. It's FAKE.
When NASA's clouds don't measure up, you lock into the pretext that all clouds on a spherical earth are incredible, consequently any such photo showing clouds must be fake, BECAUSE it doesn't show the earth as if it were flat.
Why is it so hard for you to produce a photo of a flat earth? Maybe because all such images are fake? So is this scientific or is it just photo envy?
IOW, for you, the starting point is "the earth is flat." For you that's "science."
Anything showing the contrary is "fake." Because you've already decided the outcome.
Earth being flat is one thing that is provable, but only to those interested in reality. That Joe Plebeians aren't given access to the real photos NASA possesses, is another problem entirely. But that we reject obviously fake video, familiar with telltale signs of manipulations in the videos and photos themselves, knowing that real clouds actually move in a 24 hour period, movement NEVER found in NASA videos until recently? Then yea.
You already said that you know the earth is not moving, that you consider the earth stationary. Well, NASA says it does move--all over the freakin' place--four different directions, at mind numbing speeds mind you! And you're going to believe they lied about that but didn't lie about it being a ball? Now that's faith! :incense:
-
Pledging allegiance to the arm of the government that not only lies, steals and fakes, but that also insists the world bow to science falsely so-called.
-
People now believe atheist scientists like Copernicus, Keplar and Newton must have known better than the Church Fathers because they've actually seen the ball with their own eyes. There is no other empirical proof for lay folk. You'd otherwise assume earth was flat and stationary from personal observation alone.
Actually, I'd say it's even worse than that.
You now have people who are self-professed CATHOLICS who believe in devil-worshipping occultists. People like Neil have placed their faith in Pythagoras, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, etc. who are ALL practitioners of the occult mystery religion, and some of whom are APOSTATE former-Catholic priests.
That's really quite an achievement when you think about it.
These Catholics (so-called) have rejected the Word of God in the Bible in favor of the words of MEN who were the ENEMIES of God.
-
IOW, for you, the starting point is "the earth is flat." For you that's "science."
Anything showing the contrary is "fake." Because you've already decided the outcome.
What an incredibly DISHONEST statement.
You are INTENTIONALLY and dishonestly speaking about our flat earth views here.
I am CERTAIN that every single flat earth believer, besides myself, was originally a "ball-earther."
So, to suggest that a flat earth believer has "already decided the outcome" is an utter lie.
I, like you and everyone else, was indoctrinated with the ball-earth teaching from childhood.
I did not begin to question it until about 2010. I've already discussed my own personal journey to the truth of the flat earth, the fact of which is provable observationally, and is affirmed in the infallible Word of God.
And here's yet another bonafide photo of the flat earth that did NOT come from NASA. Let me know if you need another, there's plenty more where that came from.
-
Will the real photo of earth please stand up?
This photo is hilarious. Every single illustration NASA has made of the ball earth is absurdly different - different scale, different locations of continents, etc. Ridiculous.
-
Here is one of my favorite recent observational proofs of the flat earth.
On November 7, 2015 a rocket was test-fired at Point Mugu Naval Base off the coast of California, just north of Los Angeles.
Its glow was witnessed in many states: NV, AZ, UT, and CO.
This photo was taken from 425 nautical miles away in Tucson!
This would not be possible under any circuмstances if the earth was a ball. These sightings of the launch at such great distances are only possible because the earth is flat.
This article has some nice photos of the launch taken 300nm away to the north in San Francisco.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3310577/Photographer-captures-awe-inspiring-pictures-nuclear-capable-Trident-missile-streaking-San-Francisco-fired-coast-California.html
Local CA news article about the launch:
http://glendoracitynews.com/2015/11/07/strange-orb-lights-up-socal/
-
Here is one of my favorite recent observational proofs of the flat earth.
On November 7, 2015 a rocket was test-fired at Point Mugu Naval Base off the coast of California, just north of Los Angeles.
Its glow was witnessed in many states: NV, AZ, UT, and CO.
This photo was taken from 425 nautical miles away in Tucson!
This would not be possible under any circuмstances if the earth was a ball. These sightings of the launch at such great distances are only possible because the earth is flat.
This article has some nice photos of the launch taken 300nm away to the north in San Francisco.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3310577/Photographer-captures-awe-inspiring-pictures-nuclear-capable-Trident-missile-streaking-San-Francisco-fired-coast-California.html
Local CA news article about the launch:
http://glendoracitynews.com/2015/11/07/strange-orb-lights-up-socal/
Oh dear, another globe notion bites the dust. What is the declination for curve there, a couple miles below the horizon?
-
Oh dear, another globe notion bites the dust. What is the declination for curve there, a couple miles below the horizon?
I have no idea. I'm sure Neil can do the math for us. If it's about 1,800 feet over only 60 miles, then I can approximate it to be eight times that. So, that works out to about 2.75 miles...
For the WIN!
-
:cheers:
Oh dear, another globe notion bites the dust. What is the declination for curve there, a couple miles below the horizon?
I have no idea. I'm sure Neil can do the math for us. If it's about 1,800 feet over only 60 miles, then I can approximate it to be eight times that. So, that works out to about 2.75 miles...
For the WIN!
-
That's for something on the surface of the earth... This is a rocket fired straight into the air (and then presumably exploding, lighting up the sky even higher up than the point of the explosion. This, like every other photograph you have claimed as proof, demonstrates nothing.
If you want to prove something with this photograph, come back with data about how high into the atmosphere the rocket went.
-
That's for something on the surface of the earth... This is a rocket fired straight into the air (and then presumably exploding, lighting up the sky even higher up than the point of the explosion. This, like every other photograph you have claimed as proof, demonstrates nothing.
If you want to prove something with this photograph, come back with data about how high into the atmosphere the rocket went.
This is the launch of the rocket, and clearly not the rocket exploding somewhere above ground, which would be much more chaotic with parts visible. Launches start on the ground, so the explosion is ground level. Never in the history of any rocket launches has there been a launch explosion even close to 3 miles up from ground level due to take-off ignition. And since the launch explosion circle is 85% visible, there's no way the people in the foreground could be taking the shots they are taking at such a great distance and even hope to catch the top 1% of the circle on a globe.
There are only two reasons to believe the earth is round. 1.You think you saw a real picture of it. 2. Someone told you it was round. Defending round earth as if you KNEW it was round is quite humorous because nothing you observe about earth of your own experience even remotely suggests it. Everything you experience suggests earth is flat and stationary, and now, exposing the lies of NASA, experiments also prove this, while zero experiments ever prove earth is a ball.
-
This is the launch of the rocket...
No it isn't. A reverse image search shows the image is from here (http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/110715_missile_test/lights-sky-were-navy-missile-test/). Nowhere is there a mention that this is an image of the launch. Nor are there images of the launch anywhere. Even the pictures from San Francisco show the missile already high in the sky.
This thing has a range of over 7000 miles, and it travels high in the atmosphere. This picture could be from literally any part of that trajectory. Again, inconclusive.
There are only two reasons to believe the earth is round. 1.You think you saw a real picture of it. 2. Someone told you it was round.
Or 3, you used one of the many available methods for measuring or observing its curvature and evaluated the results of your observation without bias. It's really not that hard.
-
This is the launch of the rocket...
No it isn't. A reverse image search shows the image is from here (http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/110715_missile_test/lights-sky-were-navy-missile-test/). Nowhere is there a mention that this is an image of the launch. Nor are there images of the launch anywhere. Even the pictures from San Francisco show the missile already high in the sky.
This thing has a range of over 7000 miles, and it travels high in the atmosphere. This picture could be from literally any part of that trajectory. Again, inconclusive.
There are only two reasons to believe the earth is round. 1.You think you saw a real picture of it. 2. Someone told you it was round.
Or 3, you used one of the many available methods for measuring or observing its curvature and evaluated the results of your observation without bias. It's really not that hard.
Even if the above were true, there are so many proofs that earth is devoid of curvature and not one single proof otherwise. But since there are literally hundreds of proofs earth is not a ball, and not one single proof that it is a ball, and since you cannot prove the above with anything other than it is as you say, the rocket necessarily must be as I said, and proves flat earth.
-
That's for something on the surface of the earth... This is a rocket fired straight into the air (and then presumably exploding, lighting up the sky even higher up than the point of the explosion. This, like every other photograph you have claimed as proof, demonstrates nothing.
If you want to prove something with this photograph, come back with data about how high into the atmosphere the rocket went.
It wouldn't matter if I did these things, you have zero interest in the truth of the matter, demonstrated by your skepticism and favoring atheistic mad scientists forwarding a Luciferian doctrine the Popes condemned almost 500 years ago.
-
Even if the above were true, there are so many proofs that earth is devoid of curvature and not one single proof otherwise. But since there are literally hundreds of proofs earth is not a ball, and not one single proof that it is a ball, and since you cannot prove the above with anything other than it is as you say, the rocket necessarily must be as I said, and proves flat earth.
You say there are "hundreds", yet in 60 pages of this thread no one has demonstrated one that is not easily refuted. Over and over "proofs" of the flat earth are posted that are either inconclusive (like this one), misunderstandings of physics (perspective arguments), or simply untrue. Then when you are challenged, you resort to personal attacks, claim correctness with no basis, and then resort to ad hominems (see below).
That's for something on the surface of the earth... This is a rocket fired straight into the air (and then presumably exploding, lighting up the sky even higher up than the point of the explosion. This, like every other photograph you have claimed as proof, demonstrates nothing.
If you want to prove something with this photograph, come back with data about how high into the atmosphere the rocket went.
It wouldn't matter if I did these things, you have zero interest in the truth of the matter, demonstrated by your skepticism and favoring atheistic mad scientists forwarding a Luciferian doctrine the Popes condemned almost 500 years ago.
You say I have 0 interest, yet I am the one debating facts, while you blow off corrections of your inaccurate arguments by resorting to personal attacks. There is no argument in the quoted post. Just personal attacks.
-
OK, I nearly became a flat earther, but then geometry intervened in my life.
1. If you believe in a flat earth, then you accept that the earth is a circular plane with the north pole at the center and the continents arranged around it accordingly, right?
Right.
Now, this means that the continents are oriented FROM the Center TOWARD the Antarctic perimeter. So for Example, South America, Australia and South Africa all face away from one another. If a man on each Continent is facing "South" they are not facing a common direction, they are facing three different directions separated by approximately 120 degrees each.
AND YET, if they are all on the same parallel, They ALL see the EXACT SAME NIGHT SKY rotating around the EXACT SAME POINT as ALL THREE FACE "South."
HOW is that physically possible if, in a flat earth, they are facing three different directions? You have to account for three different perspectives of one single point when those perspectives are OPPOSED to one another.
This is Physically impossible...
...UNLESS
You exist on a sphere rotating around a central point.
Your welcome. :-)
-
No it isn't. A reverse image search shows the image is from here (http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/110715_missile_test/lights-sky-were-navy-missile-test/). Nowhere is there a mention that this is an image of the launch. Nor are there images of the launch anywhere. Even the pictures from San Francisco show the missile already high in the sky.
This thing has a range of over 7000 miles, and it travels high in the atmosphere. This picture could be from literally any part of that trajectory. Again, inconclusive.
There are only two reasons to believe the earth is round. 1.You think you saw a real picture of it. 2. Someone told you it was round.
Or 3, you used one of the many available methods for measuring or observing its curvature and evaluated the results of your observation without bias. It's really not that hard.
What are you talking about? Are you trying to say the Navy lied?
It says in the articles that the missile was launched from the USS Kentucky - a SUBMARINE - off the coast of Point Mugu. Therefore it comes from underwater. This is the entire purpose of that type of nuclear sub. So, what is your point? The nautical miles values are precisely correct. Are you concerned with the altitude of a Trident missile?
The point is, the missile was launched from said location, attained an altitude high enough that it was then SEEN by people all over the USA in many states. This is NOT POSSIBLE if we live on a globe.
You have given not a single observable experiment that shows ANY curvature of the earth, whatsoever.
-
Even if the above were true, there are so many proofs that earth is devoid of curvature and not one single proof otherwise. But since there are literally hundreds of proofs earth is not a ball, and not one single proof that it is a ball, and since you cannot prove the above with anything other than it is as you say, the rocket necessarily must be as I said, and proves flat earth.
You say there are "hundreds", yet in 60 pages of this thread no one has demonstrated one that is not easily refuted. Over and over "proofs" of the flat earth are posted that are either inconclusive (like this one), misunderstandings of physics (perspective arguments), or simply untrue. Then when you are challenged, you resort to personal attacks, claim correctness with no basis, and then resort to ad hominems (see below).
That's for something on the surface of the earth... This is a rocket fired straight into the air (and then presumably exploding, lighting up the sky even higher up than the point of the explosion. This, like every other photograph you have claimed as proof, demonstrates nothing.
If you want to prove something with this photograph, come back with data about how high into the atmosphere the rocket went.
It wouldn't matter if I did these things, you have zero interest in the truth of the matter, demonstrated by your skepticism and favoring atheistic mad scientists forwarding a Luciferian doctrine the Popes condemned almost 500 years ago.
You say I have 0 interest, yet I am the one debating facts, while you blow off corrections of your inaccurate arguments by resorting to personal attacks. There is no argument in the quoted post. Just personal attacks.
I didn't post the photo, but it is obvious to me that there are no explosions that go 3 miles in the air that could be 85% visible from that distance. But whatever, the zero interest thing is when contemplating the ridiculous nature of an earth that is round makes one able to see. When one considers that impossible, that the liars at NASA who fake every picture, launched a fake moon landing to show a round earth pasted in the sky behind the moon, the people behind the heliocentric model, the absurdity of curved water clinging to a ball at breakneck speed, all come together in a very clear and obvious scam to recreate the earth in Satan's image. The people who need more and more and more proof simply are not paying attention, but excusing things that are inexcusable. That's what I mean by zero interest.
-
OK, I nearly became a flat earther, but then geometry intervened in my life.
1. If you believe in a flat earth, then you accept that the earth is a circular plane with the north pole at the center and the continents arranged around it accordingly, right?
Right.
Now, this means that the continents are oriented FROM the Center TOWARD the Antarctic perimeter. So for Example, South America, Australia and South Africa all face away from one another. If a man on each Continent is facing "South" they are not facing a common direction, they are facing three different directions separated by approximately 120 degrees each.
AND YET, if they are all on the same parallel, They ALL see the EXACT SAME NIGHT SKY rotating around the EXACT SAME POINT as ALL THREE FACE "South."
HOW is that physically possible if, in a flat earth, they are facing three different directions? You have to account for three different perspectives of one single point when those perspectives are OPPOSED to one another.
This is Physically impossible...
...UNLESS
You exist on a sphere rotating around a central point.
Your welcome. :-)
I do not accept earth is a circular plane with the north pole at the center and continents arranged around it accordingly. I have not seen earth and most maps are skewed, of that there is no doubt. I just know earth is flat, with a dome above, water above that, and hell below terra firma. The stars moon and sun are small and close. Space, as modern science depicts does not exist. Although there is a circuмscribed portion of earth God describes according to scripture, that doesn't mean there isn't exterior corners as also described, within. Likely IMHO earth is as the Catholic monk Cosmas Indiocoplestes maps out in his book Christian Topography, more of a rectangle, similar to a church with a dome over it running east to west. This makes the directions north south east and west a reality. The south of a compass is indeed 360 around, but that is merely in relation to the needle pointing north. How this resolves, I do not know. But I do know earth is not a ball. The attempt to deceive by NASA cannot be denied. There is no proof of curve, no proof of movement, and history attests to ancients committed to flat, stationary earth, so I remain a flat earther.
-
OK, I nearly became a flat earther, but then geometry intervened in my life.
1. If you believe in a flat earth, then you accept that the earth is a circular plane with the north pole at the center and the continents arranged around it accordingly, right?
Right.
Now, this means that the continents are oriented FROM the Center TOWARD the Antarctic perimeter. So for Example, South America, Australia and South Africa all face away from one another. If a man on each Continent is facing "South" they are not facing a common direction, they are facing three different directions separated by approximately 120 degrees each.
AND YET, if they are all on the same parallel, They ALL see the EXACT SAME NIGHT SKY rotating around the EXACT SAME POINT as ALL THREE FACE "South."
HOW is that physically possible if, in a flat earth, they are facing three different directions? You have to account for three different perspectives of one single point when those perspectives are OPPOSED to one another.
This is Physically impossible...
...UNLESS
You exist on a sphere rotating around a central point.
Your welcome. :-)
I do not accept earth is a circular plane with the north pole at the center and continents arranged around it accordingly. I have not seen earth and most maps are skewed, of that there is no doubt. I just know earth is flat, with a dome above, water above that, and hell below terra firma. The stars moon and sun are small and close. Space, as modern science depicts does not exist. Although there is a circuмscribed portion of earth God describes according to scripture, that doesn't mean there isn't exterior corners as also described, within. Likely IMHO earth is as the Catholic monk Cosmas Indiocoplestes maps out in his book Christian Topography, more of a rectangle, similar to a church with a dome over it running east to west. This makes the directions north south east and west a reality. The south of a compass is indeed 360 around, but that is merely in relation to the needle pointing north. How this resolves, I do not know. But I do know earth is not a ball. The attempt to deceive by NASA cannot be denied. There is no proof of curve, no proof of movement, and history attests to ancients committed to flat, stationary earth, so I remain a flat earther.
Do you have any theory for how circuмnavigation happens?
-
Here's something that's good for a laugh. A so-called satellite photo of earth from 1987.
The color of the east coast of the US is apparently that of a desert. And Northern Africa is apparently covered in snow.
And well, what's up with the shape of the Sinai Peninsula?
-
Here's a newer photo of the Sinai Peninsula. The shape sure has changed drastically in nearly 30 years, eh??
-
Here is one of your "favorite flat-earth" photos, which shows 1/16" of curvature in it:
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9637)
Get out a straight edge and see for yourself. It's curved. :wink:
-
Here is one of your "favorite flat-earth" photos, which shows 1/16" of curvature in it:
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9637)
Get out a straight edge and see for yourself. It's curved. :wink:
I thought about posting that myself, but the horizon is kinda fuzzy (particularly towards the left of the photo where there are clouds in the way). Combine that with the fact that the horizon is slanted and not in the center of the photo so now you have to worry about lens distortion effects, and you have a photo that it's hard to draw any conclusion from (in either direction).
See my post some pages back for more details about the lens distortion stuff.
What are you talking about? Are you trying to say the Navy lied?
It says in the articles that the missile was launched from the USS Kentucky - a SUBMARINE - off the coast of Point Mugu. Therefore it comes from underwater. This is the entire purpose of that type of nuclear sub. So, what is your point? The nautical miles values are precisely correct. Are you concerned with the altitude of a Trident missile?
The point is, the missile was launched from said location, attained an altitude high enough that it was then SEEN by people all over the USA in many states. This is NOT POSSIBLE if we live on a globe.
You have given not a single observable experiment that shows ANY curvature of the earth, whatsoever.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--3V3ueJXt--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1510344297395003972.jpg)
Yes, it was launched from the surface, and went very high into the atmosphere, thus it was visible from far away.
-
Here's a newer photo of the Sinai Peninsula. The shape sure has changed drastically in nearly 30 years, eh??
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9646)
Time for a geography lesson.
The Sinai peninsula is a small land mass at the north end of the Red Sea.
BTW the Suez Canal that you love to mention is even smaller, up at the top left of the peninsula, connecting the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea:
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranreview.org%2Ffile%2Fcms%2Ffiles%2Fsinai.jpg&sp=72838b3284033479dc9dbfdbcbc94ee2)
The Arabian peninsula is a much larger land mass to the east of the Red Sea, which extends into the Indian Ocean:
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fwww.sitesatlas.com%2FMaps%2FMaps%2F604.gif&sp=7cdfea57d39306a23f7cdbb7755321ac)
Notice the little area in the top left corner, which is the Sinai Peninsula.
And on the east side of the Arabian Peninsula is the Persian Gulf with its characteristic Strait of Hormuz, a dogleg feature near Dubai and United Arab Emirates.
But here is the ignorant mw2016 looking at the Arabian Peninsula and thinking that it is the Sinai Peninsula!!!
Here's something that's good for a laugh. A so-called satellite photo of earth from 1987.
The color of the east coast of the US is apparently that of a desert. And Northern Africa is apparently covered in snow.
And well, what's up with the shape of the Sinai Peninsula?
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9645)
Answer:
The shape of the Sinai Peninsula is just fine. It is that little spot about 1/8" across in this photo of earth from 1987, found at the north end of the Red Sea just east of Egypt and south of the Mediterranean Sea, where it has been all along, even if you have been unaware of the fact, kind of like the spherical earth actually.
:surprised:
The "color" of the east coast of the USA, if you will notice, is the same color as most of Europe and parts of Africa and India. So it's likely a key color indicating some particular wavelength of the light spectrum, perhaps one not visible to the human eye. Weather photos use color for information not for appearance or viewer appeal.
The whiteness over the Sahara Desert is likewise some key color for meteorological use, not to show ice as you presume.
.
-
See my post some pages back for more details about the lens distortion stuff.
You, mw2016, who can't tell the difference between the Sinai and Arabian peninsulas, are going to teach me something about lens distortion?
How much experience do you have with photography and optics?
Better yet, what is the year of your birth?
-
You might want to re-read who posted that.
-
OK, I nearly became a flat earther, but then geometry intervened in my life.
1. If you believe in a flat earth, then you accept that the earth is a circular plane with the north pole at the center and the continents arranged around it accordingly, right?
Right.
Now, this means that the continents are oriented FROM the Center TOWARD the Antarctic perimeter. So for Example, South America, Australia and South Africa all face away from one another. If a man on each Continent is facing "South" they are not facing a common direction, they are facing three different directions separated by approximately 120 degrees each.
AND YET, if they are all on the same parallel, They ALL see the EXACT SAME NIGHT SKY rotating around the EXACT SAME POINT as ALL THREE FACE "South."
HOW is that physically possible if, in a flat earth, they are facing three different directions? You have to account for three different perspectives of one single point when those perspectives are OPPOSED to one another.
This is Physically impossible...
...UNLESS
You exist on a sphere rotating around a central point.
You're welcome. :-)
They don't want to respond to your post, Gregory I, because
A) They don't think that a compass can work on the earth. They say it will always point off into space and never north. This is due to the fact that the other end of the needle would have to point south, and to them, south is in all directions, as you say. Therefore they deny the reality of north and south since its logic is inescapable.
B) They claim that the North Star (Polaris) can be seen from 23 1/2 degrees south of the Equator (curiously, south of the Equator is a direction they deny exists and the Equator is meaningless to them since they deny the earth has a circuмference halfway between the north pole and the south pole). But they can't provide any examples of Polaris as viewed from let's say the Amazon basin in Brazil or anywhere else in the southern hemisphere. Oh, they don't think there is any southern hemisphere.
C) Furthermore, they claim the Southern Cross can be seen from Florida and Texas in the USA. But they can't provide any proof of this fantasy.
-
You might want to re-read who posted that.
Woops. Sorry. My bad. :sign-surrender:
-
OK, I nearly became a flat earther, but then geometry intervened in my life.
1. If you believe in a flat earth, then you accept that the earth is a circular plane with the north pole at the center and the continents arranged around it accordingly, right?
Right.
Now, this means that the continents are oriented FROM the Center TOWARD the Antarctic perimeter. So for Example, South America, Australia and South Africa all face away from one another. If a man on each Continent is facing "South" they are not facing a common direction, they are facing three different directions separated by approximately 120 degrees each.
AND YET, if they are all on the same parallel, They ALL see the EXACT SAME NIGHT SKY rotating around the EXACT SAME POINT as ALL THREE FACE "South."
HOW is that physically possible if, in a flat earth, they are facing three different directions? You have to account for three different perspectives of one single point when those perspectives are OPPOSED to one another.
This is Physically impossible...
...UNLESS
You exist on a sphere rotating around a central point.
Your welcome. :-)
I do not accept earth is a circular plane with the north pole at the center and continents arranged around it accordingly. I have not seen earth and most maps are skewed, of that there is no doubt. I just know earth is flat, with a dome above, water above that, and hell below terra firma. The stars moon and sun are small and close. Space, as modern science depicts does not exist. Although there is a circuмscribed portion of earth God describes according to scripture, that doesn't mean there isn't exterior corners as also described, within. Likely IMHO earth is as the Catholic monk Cosmas Indiocoplestes maps out in his book Christian Topography, more of a rectangle, similar to a church with a dome over it running east to west. This makes the directions north south east and west a reality. The south of a compass is indeed 360 around, but that is merely in relation to the needle pointing north. How this resolves, I do not know. But I do know earth is not a ball. The attempt to deceive by NASA cannot be denied. There is no proof of curve, no proof of movement, and history attests to ancients committed to flat, stationary earth, so I remain a flat earther.
Do you have any theory for how circuмnavigation happens?
Even if earth is flat, rectangular shaped, a circuмnavigation can easily take place over the surface in a level circle smaller than than the area of earth itself. We don't have to think circuмnavigation around a ball, but a circuмscribed circle on a "plate". One can start in one place, and travel in a circle and literally come full circle on a plane surface. What we cannot do, is fly in a jet with a gyroscope inside the plane and not have to pull the nose down to keep up with the curvature that constantly descends away from the nose of the plane. Flying level on a curved surface the size of earth, if it were a ball, demands a lot of adjustment for curvature, yet planes fly level. Without the adjustment, a plane would fly off into "space" pretty quickly.
-
Here is one of your "favorite flat-earth" photos, which shows 1/16" of curvature in it:
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9637)
Get out a straight edge and see for yourself. It's curved. :wink:
The problem with saying the horizon in that picture is curved is that whatever you've measured does not prove curvature as in a ball, but easily could be the curvature you'd see on the edge of a flat round table. If one stood in the middle of a very large table, the edges would appear slightly curved around the plane edge, to your left and to your right and would appear as this does, only slightly curved, but not like a ball. The problem with saying a ball curve exists at this height is that we should already be seeing the horizon fall downward well before this height as all horizons should drop below the line of sight almost immediately once you start to rise up. Rather, earth's horizon always rises level to the eye of the observer, literally no matter how high man has gone (and still provided pictures), proving that earth is a plane.
-
OK, I nearly became a flat earther, but then geometry intervened in my life.
1. If you believe in a flat earth, then you accept that the earth is a circular plane with the north pole at the center and the continents arranged around it accordingly, right?
Right.
Now, this means that the continents are oriented FROM the Center TOWARD the Antarctic perimeter. So for Example, South America, Australia and South Africa all face away from one another. If a man on each Continent is facing "South" they are not facing a common direction, they are facing three different directions separated by approximately 120 degrees each.
AND YET, if they are all on the same parallel, They ALL see the EXACT SAME NIGHT SKY rotating around the EXACT SAME POINT as ALL THREE FACE "South."
HOW is that physically possible if, in a flat earth, they are facing three different directions? You have to account for three different perspectives of one single point when those perspectives are OPPOSED to one another.
This is Physically impossible...
...UNLESS
You exist on a sphere rotating around a central point.
You're welcome. :-)
They don't want to respond to your post, Gregory I, because
A) They don't think that a compass can work on the earth. They say it will always point off into space and never north. This is due to the fact that the other end of the needle would have to point south, and to them, south is in all directions, as you say. Therefore they deny the reality of north and south since its logic is inescapable.
B) They claim that the North Star (Polaris) can be seen from 23 1/2 degrees south of the Equator (curiously, south of the Equator is a direction they deny exists and the Equator is meaningless to them since they deny the earth has a circuмference halfway between the north pole and the south pole). But they can't provide any examples of Polaris as viewed from let's say the Amazon basin in Brazil or anywhere else in the southern hemisphere. Oh, they don't think there is any southern hemisphere.
C) Furthermore, they claim the Southern Cross can be seen from Florida and Texas in the USA. But they can't provide any proof of this fantasy.
Actually, Neil, your silly answer, no it doesn't to the compass problem I pointed out to you is more of a dodge than anything the flat earthers have done. How do you explain, that a compass on the equator, held flat would not point straight out into space and not to the north pole. If you tip the compass to point to the north pole as if it were the north pole on a globe, you've tilted the compass 90 degrees and it will no longer be free to point.
As for Polaris, we are using your ball to prove that it would be impossible to see Polaris from 23 degrees south. Yet, we can see Polaris from as low as 23 degrees south. This proves earth is a plane. Below 23 degrees south doesn't matter because you cannot see Polaris from there on a ball or on a plane. But since we can see it on a plane, and since it would be impossible on a ball because of the bulge of the edge of the ball sits between the viewer and Polaris, the ball theory is not possible.
As for the Southern Cross, I gave you a popular modern website that explains:To see all of Crux from the US, you have to be as far south as Hawaii, or the southern parts of Florida or Texas (about 26o north latitude or farther south). Even from these spots in the US, you have a rather limited viewing window for catching the Southern Cross. It has to be the right season of the year. It has to be the right time of night. And you have to look in the right direction: SOUTH!
But since the southern part of Texas is in the Northern Hemisphere, and it can still see the Southern Cross, that means that earth is a plane because with that constellation sow low on the horizon, the viewer is on the upper side of a curve that he cannot possibly see through to the south. It is a physical impossibility to see around a curve. Proof again, earth is a plane.
-
If the earth was flat then airplanes would be able to fly past the end of the world and into nothingness. Has this ever happened? And if the firmament comes out of the ground and comes up like a wall and then comes over the sky like a ceiling, preventing the airplanes from flying over the ends of the world, then airplanes would crash into the firmament. Has this ever happened?
-
Neil - my bad on the name mix-up on the peninsulas. I knew what I was trying to say this morning and google gave me the wrong image on my search. The Sinai is not even visible in the Reader's Digest photo from 1987, but it is white too...LOL.
At any rate, the point being, the photo is FAKE and there would be no reason for any sort of "coloration" of the image.
-
If the earth was flat then airplanes would be able to fly past the end of the world and into nothingness. Has this ever happened? And if the firmament comes out of the ground and comes up like a wall and then comes over the sky like a ceiling, preventing the airplanes from flying over the ends of the world, then airplanes would crash into the firmament. Has this ever happened?
It happens all the time, Matto, but the news media is in a conspiracy to hide it!
Remember what used to be called the "Bermuda Triangle?" Planes and stuff just suddenly were GONE flying through there. So the MSM stopped covering that news.
And all the rocket launches that are supposed to go into outer space (which ought to be straight up, right?) actually curve over toward the horizontal, and that's so they don't hit the dome.
And the SR-71 "Blackbird" that's supposed to fly at 100,000 feet (19 miles) high, well, that's just propaganda. That never happened.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fuuvjj2jibz2cmkab4zcv.jpg&sp=ac40208a10502056261af8d177b6a8e9)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--3Kdd6bbA--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/wmngfvvclj8eeyxddqin.jpg)
(More fake photos? HAHAHA)
The SR-71 was a technological marvel. Practically every area of design required new approaches or breakthroughs in technology. To withstand high temperatures generated by friction in the upper atmosphere during sustained Mach 3 flight, the Blackbird required an array of specially developed materials including high temperature fuel, sealants, lubricants, wiring and other components. Ninety-three percent of the Blackbird's airframe consisted of titanium alloy that allowed the aircraft to operate in a regime where temperatures range from 450 degrees Fahrenheit at its aft midsection to 950 degrees Fahrenheit near the engine exhaust. The cockpit canopy, made of special heat resistant glass, had to withstand surface temperatures as high as 640 degrees Fahrenheit.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--GMSWqKqb--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/cblxohluolz8zxwhkhes.jpg)
Thirty-five years ago, three US Air Force aircrews, flying the Mach 3+ SR-71 high altitude reconnaissance aircraft, set three absolute world aviation records—the maximum performance by any type of aircraft—in two days. Capt. Al Joersz (pilot, right) and Maj. George Morgan (Reconnaissance Systems Operator, left) set the Absolute Speed record over Edwards AFB, California, on 28 July 1976. The officially recorded average speed of the two legs was 2,193.16 mph. The record still stands in 2011. Blackbird 958 is now on display at the Museum of Aviation at Warner Robins, Georgia.
Don't expect happenby or mw2016 to ask Capt. Joersz or Maj. Morgan if the earth is spherical. After all, they could have looked out the window to see, but they were no doubt too busy watching instruments to pay any attention to stuff like that.
.
-
Here is one of your "favorite flat-earth" photos, which shows 1/16" of curvature in it:
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9637)
Get out a straight edge and see for yourself. It's curved. :wink:
Yes, let's talk about curvature, and the lack thereof.
Better yet, let's talk about CURVATURE and SCALE.
Here, I'll give you an example:
This photo is from the ISS of the Iberian Peninsula (I'll try not to mix it up with any other peninsulas :wink: ).
Notice how the Iberian Peninsula is a very SMALL piece of land only about 400 nautical miles across. When you draw a line of the curvature in this photo and continue it outside of frame to make a complete circle you will quickly realize it is not nearly BIG ENOUGH to encompass the entire width of the earth - which at any given point on a sphere is 8,000 miles. If you drew the rest of the circle in this picture, it would make Spain take up nearly that entire side of the "planet!"
The CURVATURE is WRONG. It is too curved for the size of the landmass that is photographed below it. Therefore, it is fake. They added the curve to this photo. You can also prove this to yourself by watching the livestream of the ISS, which shows ZERO curvature of the earth, when the horizon is visible.
-
If the earth was flat then airplanes would be able to fly past the end of the world and into nothingness. Has this ever happened? And if the firmament comes out of the ground and comes up like a wall and then comes over the sky like a ceiling, preventing the airplanes from flying over the ends of the world, then airplanes would crash into the firmament. Has this ever happened?
There are no flights that go anywhere near the edges. All the edges are "south" and there are no flights in the extreme south. Therefore, no one will ever fly off the "edge."
-
From a rocket re-entry: FLAT.
-
There are no flights that go anywhere near the edges. All the edges are "south" and there are no flights in the extreme south. Therefore, no one will ever fly off the "edge."
So in the hundred years of aviation, no one ever tried to fly south? Well, if an airplane did fly to the ends of the world, what would happen?
-
High altitude balloon at 121,000 feet: FLAT.
-
Solar eclipse at 35,000 feet: FLAT.
-
False. They're using GoPro cameras which fisheye the lens at the top and bottom. So this could be a slight curvature being turned straight because of the fisheye effect. You can see it in YouTube videos of high altitude weather balloons.
-
AND YET, if they are all on the same parallel, They ALL see the EXACT SAME NIGHT SKY rotating around the EXACT SAME POINT as ALL THREE FACE "South."
HOW is that physically possible if, in a flat earth, they are facing three different directions? You have to account for three different perspectives of one single point when those perspectives are OPPOSED to one another.
Perspective.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/afsb39_6QF0[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ld6W-65lqD0[/youtube]
-
Here's another obviously "fake" photo of the curvature of the earth behind an SR-71 Blackbird:
(https://images4.alphacoders.com/569/569214.jpg)
-
Here is some more round earth "propoganda."
Link (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/byrd-flies-over-south-pole)
Of course he did't really fly over the south pole because that is impossible because there is no south pole.
-
False. This perspective is impossible in a flat earth. Do you hold to the continental layout of the azimuth? Then explain how people facing south in Australia and facing south in South Africa see the exact same night sky wile facing OPPOSITE directions. Physically impossible. If the earth is flat then there are two star fields rotating around two different points. If the earth is a sphere, then both are facing a common point.
Geometry doesn't forgive.
-
You cannot possibly have watched the videos in 90 seconds. You made up your mind, you're not interested in learning anything.
-
Here's another obviously "fake" photo of the curvature of the earth behind an SR-71 Blackbird:
(https://images4.alphacoders.com/569/569214.jpg)
You know that is a CGI plane, right?
-
Now HERE is a great example of a fake image. They don't dare try to make it look like a photo because then they'd have to admit that it's possible to get a camera up that high, with all the problems that comes with that (since they've already said it's impossible to do that). Of course, it's not a photo but then nobody could ever take a photo of something that doesn't exist!
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9648)
-
You cannot possibly have watched the videos in 90 seconds. You made up your mind, you're not interested in learning anything.
I have seen all these videos before when I was into flat earth stuff. Regarding Hogh altitude balloons, Watch the camera lens, it causes distortion as it moves.
-
False. This perspective is impossible in a flat earth. Do you hold to the continental layout of the azimuth? Then explain how people facing south in Australia and facing south in South Africa see the exact same night sky while facing OPPOSITE directions. Physically impossible. If the earth is flat then there are two star fields rotating around two different points. If the earth is a sphere, then both are facing a common point.
Geometry doesn't forgive.
Now they're saying that people standing on their "flat earth" can't see the whole sky, and that a portion low in the sky is out of view from their "flat earth" -- without bothering to explain HOW or WHY a portion of the lower sky is out of view. (See 3:40 - 4:30 in the following video, which has a FAKE PHOTO on the front cover, since nobody sees star tracks that swirl in opposite directions like this, it's all FAKE):
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ahNfU7zYlmY[/youtube]
Answer: That lower portion of the sky is out of view because the earth isn't flat.
BTW -- the horizon doesn't "rise to meet the eye of the observer" because there is a portion of the sky that is not rising at all, since it's beyond the curvature of the earth.
And then they say that Polaris is visible from the entire southern area south of the equator. They can't say "southern hemisphere" because they deny the existence of ANY hemisphere.
(A hemisphere is half of a sphere and they say there is no sphere where earth is concerned.) Obviously, saying that a portion of the sky is not visible and in the next breath saying that Polaris is visible south of the equator are two self-contradictory statements.
Either the horizon rises to meet the observer which makes Polaris visible all over the "flat earth", OR, there is a portion of the sky that is not visible.
But both are impossible because they contradict each other.
Flat-earthers deny the principle of non-contradiction.
Just like Joseph Ratzinger in his hermeneutic of continuity.
-
Here's another obviously "fake" photo of the curvature of the earth behind an SR-71 Blackbird:
(https://images4.alphacoders.com/569/569214.jpg)
You know that is a CGI plane, right?
No, sorry mw2016, NASA's photos are the real deal. Always true. NASA said so. Earth is round and shooting through space (or not) but we just don't feel it. Flat earthers are so bent on "truth" that they think scripture is literal and that while earth may be geocentric, NASA couldn't possibly lie about EVERYTHING.
This is like trying to explain to a Lutheran that the Church was always Catholic. Only those given grace can hear truth.
-
Here is some more round earth "propoganda."
Link (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/byrd-flies-over-south-pole)
Of course he didn't really fly over the south pole because that is impossible because there is no south pole.
Richard Byrd conducted 5 (five) expeditions to Antarctica.
From the site linked above:
1929
Byrd flies over South Pole
American explorer Richard Byrd and three companions make the first flight over the South Pole, flying from their base on the Ross Ice Shelf to the pole and back in 18 hours and 41 minutes.
Richard Evelyn Byrd learned how to fly in the U.S. Navy and served as a pilot in World War I. An excellent navigator, he was deployed by the navy to Greenland in 1924 to help explore the Arctic region by air. Enamored with the experience of flying over glaciers and sea ice, he decided to attempt the first flight over the North Pole.
On May 9, 1926, the Josephine Ford left Spitsbergen, Norway, with Byrd as navigator and Floyd Bennet as pilot. Fifteen hours and 30 minutes later, the pair returned and announced they had accomplished their mission. For the achievement, both men were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. However, some doubt lingered about whether they had actually flown over the North Pole, and in 1996 a diary Byrd had kept on the flight was found that seemed to suggest that the Josephine Ford had turned back 150 miles short of its goal because of an oil leak. In the late 1920s, however, few suspected Byrd had failed in his mission.
In 1927, Byrd’s prestige grew when he made a harrowing nonstop flight across the Atlantic with three companions. Famous as he was, he had little trouble finding financial backers for an expedition to Antarctica. Byrd’s first Antarctic expedition was the largest and best-equipped expedition that had ever set out for the southern continent. The explorers set out in the fall of 1928, building a large base camp called “Little America” on the Ross Ice Shelf near the Bay of Whales. From there, they conducted flights across the Antarctic continent and discovered much unknown territory.
At 3:29 p.m. on November 28, 1929, Byrd, the pilot Bernt Balchen, and two others took off from Little America in the Floyd Bennett, headed for the South Pole. Magnetic compasses were useless so near the pole, so the explorers were forced to rely on sun compasses and Byrd’s skill as a navigator. At 8:15 p.m., they dropped supplies for a geological party near the Queen Maud Mountains and then continued on. The most challenging phase of the journey came an hour later, when the Floyd Bennett struggled to gain enough altitude to fly safely above the Polar Plateau. They cleared the 11,000-foot pass between Mount Fridtjof Nansen and Mount Fisher by a few hundred yards and then flew on to the South Pole, reaching it at around 1 a.m. on November 29. They flew a few miles beyond the pole and then to the right and the left to compensate for any navigational errors. Byrd dropped a small American flag on the pole, and the explorers headed for home, safely landing at Little America at 10:11 a.m.
In 1933, Byrd, now a rear admiral in the navy, led a second expedition to Antarctica. During the winter of 1934, he spent five months trapped at a weather station 123 miles from Little America. He was finally rescued in a desperately sick condition in August 1934. In 1939, Byrd took command of the U.S. Antarctic Service at the request of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and led a third expedition to the continent. During World War II, he served on the staff of the chief of naval operations. After the war, he led his fourth expedition to Antarctica, the largest ever attempted to this date, and more than 500,000 miles of the continent were mapped by his planes. In 1955, he led his fifth and final expedition to Antarctica. He died in 1957.
After mapping half a million square miles of Antarctica after WWII, they were certainly most confused as to its shape, and misconstrued an ice wall with a diameter of 13,000 miles for a contiguous continent less than 2,000 miles across, like we see at the bottom of any globe earth.
They were all part of the great conspiracy aimed at deceiving everyone and hiding the flatness of the earth, lest we all would discover the REAL "truth."
We've all been lied to. It's a great conspiracy, I tell you!! :soapbox:
:facepalm:
.
-
You know that is a CGI plane, right?
I know a pilot who flew the plane. Maybe I should tell him he imagined the whole thing.
-
No, sorry mw2016, NASA's photos are the real deal. Always true. NASA said so. Earth is round and shooting through space (or not) but we just don't feel it. Flat earthers are so bent on "truth" that they think scripture is literal and that while earth may be geocentric, NASA couldn't possibly lie about EVERYTHING.
This is like trying to explain to a Lutheran that the Church was always Catholic. Only those given grace can hear truth.
You are so right, my friend.
-
You know that is a CGI plane, right?
I know a pilot who flew the plane. Maybe I should tell him he imagined the whole thing.
I know it's real, I've stood right next to it at the Steven Udvar-Hazy Museum in VA.
I've spent a fair amount of time around aircraft and my brother was a fighter pilot for ten years.
Needless to say, your particular SR-71 image is an "artist rendering." Sorry.
-
Let me guess:
Your brother, who was a fighter pilot for 10 years, thinks the earth is flat like you do, correct?
.
-
Let me guess:
Your brother, who was a fighter pilot for 10 years, thinks the earth is flat like you do, correct?
.
LOL, no. But, he doesn't believe in God either, so what does he know?? :wink:
-
Maybe gravity has something to do with attachment to the ball...
-
Let me guess:
Your brother, who was a fighter pilot for 10 years, thinks the earth is flat like you do, correct?
LOL, no. But, he doesn't believe in God either, so what does he know?? :wink:
Do you believe that he doesn't know what he saw when he looked out the cockpit window?
Or -- have you ever wondered whether he doesn't believe in God because of your example?
-
Has anyone here ever looked up at the sky with a telescope at night?
I have. I used to do it for fun with my kids. We've seen Saturn, the Moon, and Jupiter and other more distant planets/stars. The reason I mention the above, is that they certainly looked like spherical objects. Is there any reason they are spherical and the Earth wouldn't be?
-
Or -- have you ever wondered whether he doesn't believe in God because of your example?
Ew, you are really vile, Neil.
-
Has anyone here ever looked up at the sky with a telescope at night?
I have. I used to do it for fun with my kids. We've seen Saturn, the Moon, and Jupiter and other more distant planets/stars. The reason I mention the above, is that they certainly looked like spherical objects. Is there any reason they are spherical and the Earth wouldn't be?
Why does spherical follow if planets are round but presence of oxygen and water and food, etc. does not? You may have a telescope and have seen heavenly bodies, but have you ever used a really high powered piece of equipment to view them? Stars look like this up close:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdNFo5eWf9g
-
Has anyone here ever looked up at the sky with a telescope at night?
I have. I used to do it for fun with my kids. We've seen Saturn, the Moon, and Jupiter and other more distant planets/stars. The reason I mention the above, is that they certainly looked like spherical objects. Is there any reason they are spherical and the Earth wouldn't be?
Why does spherical follow if planets are round but presence of oxygen and water and food, etc. does not? You may have a telescope and have seen heavenly bodies, but have you ever used a really high powered piece of equipment to view them? Stars look like this up close:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdNFo5eWf9g
Seriously... he is using a $200 camera to look at stars and saying it is "closely matched" to the capabilities of modern telescopes, and you take it seriously? Come on now...
-
So where do comets hide on a flat earth? They usually have a certain cycle, such as one of the more famous ones like Halleys Comet which is about every 75 years.
-
Has anyone here ever looked up at the sky with a telescope at night?
I have. I used to do it for fun with my kids. We've seen Saturn, the Moon, and Jupiter and other more distant planets/stars. The reason I mention the above, is that they certainly looked like spherical objects. Is there any reason they are spherical and the Earth wouldn't be?
Why does spherical follow if planets are round but presence of oxygen and water and food, etc. does not? You may have a telescope and have seen heavenly bodies, but have you ever used a really high powered piece of equipment to view them? Stars look like this up close:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdNFo5eWf9g
I've looked through a telescope when I had one and the stars all blink and pulsate with varied colors of light. None of them look like "bodies" nor "suns."
Actually, the footage of stars in that video reminds me of a Tesla Ball. Perhaps each star is a light of electric plasma set within a glass ball in the Firmament, which is described as molten glass in the Bible.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/kDqAc3YrFr0[/youtube]
-
We've seen Saturn, the Moon, and Jupiter and other more distant planets/stars. The reason I mention the above, is that they certainly looked like spherical objects. Is there any reason they are spherical and the Earth wouldn't be?
The earth is an earthly body. The heavens are heavenly bodies. Why would you automatically assume they are the same? The Bible clearly states that they are NOT:
"And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial: but, one is the glory of the celestial, and another of the terrestrial. One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory." I Cor. 15:40-41/DRV
To conclude that the earth is spherical because some heavenly bodies are would be the same as to say, "An elephant has ears, I have ears, therefore I am an elephant."
-
Has anyone here ever looked up at the sky with a telescope at night?
I have. I used to do it for fun with my kids. We've seen Saturn, the Moon, and Jupiter and other more distant planets/stars. The reason I mention the above, is that they certainly looked like spherical objects. Is there any reason they are spherical and the Earth wouldn't be?
Why does spherical follow if planets are round but presence of oxygen and water and food, etc. does not? You may have a telescope and have seen heavenly bodies, but have you ever used a really high powered piece of equipment to view them? Stars look like this up close:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdNFo5eWf9g
Seriously... he is using a $200 camera to look at stars and saying it is "closely matched" to the capabilities of modern telescopes, and you take it seriously? Come on now...
Oh brother...seriously? This is how stars look in the real world. Won't get this from NASA. Prove it to yourself, that's the beauty of truth. But sadly, many just like to bat the truth away like a fly, without bothering to even check. Shame really.
-
Ever notice, mw2016, people would rather believe what they prefer than know the truth? They think they 'gotcha' by holding out. As the niggling conscience begs to be heard, that law written on the heart should know instantly, yet refuses. I truly do not understand the mentality. Are you not continuously surprised by that, even though, by now, you can't possibly be truly surprised?
-
Ever notice, mw2016, people would rather believe what they prefer than know the truth?
Oh the irony... You are taking this video and believing it is correct because it fits your worldview. I am merely pointing out it's ridiculousness.
The camera used has a focal length of maybe 2 inches. Even at max zoom, it's many times less powerful than even a modest recreational telescope, to say nothing of the gigantic ones that have been constructed. Yet for some reason you are holding it up as the absolute truth and discarding any evidence to the contrary.
Clearly I am the one "batting the truth away like a fly". :facepalm:
-
Ever notice, mw2016, people would rather believe what they prefer than know the truth?
Oh the irony... You are taking this video and believing it is correct because it fits your worldview. I am merely pointing out it's ridiculousness.
The camera used has a focal length of maybe 2 inches. Even at max zoom, it's many times less powerful than even a modest recreational telescope, to say nothing of the gigantic ones that have been constructed. Yet for some reason you are holding it up as the absolute truth and discarding any evidence to the contrary.
Clearly I am the one "batting the truth away like a fly". :facepalm:
No sir. Its the entire discussion. Its about the kind of treatment the messengers get. It is so completely predictable, its ridiculous. I'm watching Catholics act like Protestants and atheists, using the same kind of arguments, same tactics pseudo Catholics complain about in people they can identify as wrong, but who use those tactics when something new comes their way. Frankly, its an embarrassment for them.
-
What? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to imply, but maybe you should stop attacking me and my intentions and let your argument stand on its own merits.
-
What? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to imply, but maybe you should stop attacking me and my intentions and let your argument stand on its own merits.
Not even the perfect argument can stand on is own merits when people refuse to listen. Ask Our Lord...
-
Happenby does have a point - the level of anger and outrage from fellow Catholics on this entirely Biblical topic IS an embarrassment. All of you who are supposed to have rejected the world have instead embraced it, and its god "science," and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
The naysayers reject every bit of evidence out of hand, not giving it the slightest moment of consideration, and provide an endless list of excuses why it couldn't possibly be true.
-
Happenby does have a point - the level of anger and outrage from fellow Catholics on this entirely Biblical topic IS an embarrassment. All of you who are supposed to have rejected the world have instead embraced it, and its god "science," and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
The naysayers reject every bit of evidence out of hand, not giving it the slightest moment of consideration, and provide an endless list of excuses why it couldn't possibly be true.
Oh and how nasty they get in defense, truly as you say, never considering for one moment that they don't hold the patent on truth. You almost never get a decent response like, "Really? I've never heard of that. Please explain why you would believe such a thing." Rather, the stubborn dissenter's very first instinct is to reject first, then conjure ways to refute even the most basic and obvious facts no one can dispute like water seeking its own level. They can't stand the thought that they might be wrong about something as big as flat earth. So the heck what? First thing I did is wonder if maybe I really had suffered indoctrination, not assume I couldn't be wrong. Its amazing the lengths they go to protecting their ideas and egos. As if that were the actual goal! How strange their defenses are, too. Start to make a point, they change the subject. Show them no curve, they bring up latitude and longitude. Talk water sticking to the outside of a spinning ball, and they talk the direction water drains down their toilet. Show the boggling amount of dollars NASA gains from the lie, they call you a conspiracy nut. They evade, degrade, demand, snark, twist and rail with every insult they can hurl, then complain that you haven't answered all their questions, never having met even a kindergarten level of proof for what they believe! You said it so well above, but it reminded me how mad it makes me and I just had to vent.
This is the mirror, people. Take a good hard look.
There. I'm all better now. :soapbox:
-
This is not to suggest there hasn't been perfectly decent responses or questions posted here. Several folks have been lovely Catholics, obviously curious, dubious, but courteous enough to hold their tongue while they process. Thank you people, you know who you are.
-
Oh and how nasty they get in defense, truly as you say, never considering for one moment that they don't hold the patent on truth. You almost never get a decent response like, "Really? I've never heard of that. Please explain why you would believe such a thing." Rather, the stubborn dissenter's very first instinct is to reject first, then conjure ways to refute even the most basic and obvious facts no one can dispute like water seeking its own level. They can't stand the thought that they might be wrong about something as big as flat earth. So the heck what? First thing I did is wonder if maybe I really had suffered indoctrination, not assume I couldn't be wrong. Its amazing the lengths they go to protecting their ideas and egos. As if that were the actual goal! How strange their defenses are, too. Start to make a point, they change the subject. Show them no curve, they bring up latitude and longitude. Talk water sticking to the outside of a spinning ball, and they talk the direction water drains down their toilet. Show the boggling amount of dollars NASA gains from the lie, they call you a conspiracy nut. They evade, degrade, demand, snark, twist and rail with every insult they can hurl, then complain that you haven't answered all their questions, never having met even a kindergarten level of proof for what they believe! You said it so well above, but it reminded me how mad it makes me and I just had to vent.
This is the mirror, people. Take a good hard look.
There. I'm all better now. :soapbox:
Yes, I have never understood the anger. So much weeping and gnashing of teeth. So much ridicule. Zero thoughtful consideration.
Notice Neil decided he ought to attack who I am as a Catholic, rather than respond to the scale of curvature being completely wrong in this photo of the Iberian Peninsula.
-
As I type this, there is a spacewalk happening overhead - right now. I took this screenshot of the astronaut, Jeff, while he was working a moment ago from the ISS livestream.
As you can see, the horizon line is completely level - there is no curvature. It's the bluish line at the bottom part of the photo, with the ocean below. You can see his right glove in the upper right corner of the photo. This was coming from his body camera.
-
As I type this, there is a spacewalk happening overhead - right now. I took this screenshot of the astronaut, Jeff, while he was working a moment ago from the ISS livestream.
As you can see, the horizon line is completely level - there is no curvature. It's the bluish line at the bottom part of the photo, with the ocean below. You can see his right glove in the upper right corner of the photo. This was coming from his body camera.
Wait a minute... how can you use this screen shot to support your position? You believe that NASA is nothing but a perpetrator of lies (my words), satellites don't exist, man has never been in space etc. Is this not true?
-
Vulgate (Clementine)
Qui sedet super gyrum terrae, et habitatores ejus sunt quasi locustae; qui extendit velut nihilum caelos, et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum;
Noun
g?rus (genitive g?r?); (masc.)
circle
a circular motion
a circuit, course, ring
by extension - place where horses are trained
:sleep:
:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
(https://outofthisworldx.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/flat-earth-vs-round-earth.jpg)
:jester: :jester: :jester: :jester:
-
As I type this, there is a spacewalk happening overhead - right now. I took this screenshot of the astronaut, Jeff, while he was working a moment ago from the ISS livestream.
As you can see, the horizon line is completely level - there is no curvature. It's the bluish line at the bottom part of the photo, with the ocean below. You can see his right glove in the upper right corner of the photo. This was coming from his body camera.
Wait a minute... how can you use this screen shot to support your position? You believe that NASA is nothing but a perpetrator of lies (my words), satellites don't exist, man has never been in space etc. Is this not true?
Yes.
NASA lies about lots of things, e.g. we've never been to the moon, heliocentrism is false, sun & moon are close, etc.
However, the "space station" is an aircraft, just as the space shuttle was an aircraft. In other words, it is essentially a very high altitude airplane that flies in circles above the flat plane of the earth. Notice that they are all of the same design,(the shuttle, the ISS, and planes) i.e. a cylinder-shaped fusleage with wings.
So, while I know there are FE'ers who think there is no ISS, I am not in that camp, and you can see it circling above the earth at night with a telescope. Also, it becomes apparent very quickly from viewing their live feeds that it is not nearly at the altitude claimed.
I am quite certain that NASA knows perfectly well the earth is flat. All their math for rocket-launches is based on a flat earth, and no curvature is factored into their launches. They probably know all sorts of things from their research up there that they do not share with the public.
Man has never been to "outer space" because there is no such thing as "outer space" due to the Firmament. The Firmament is a solid barrier between heaven and the waters above, as it says in the Bible.
You can also see that the altitude of the sun in the live feed from the ISS is very low, not 93 million miles away.
-
Vulgate (Clementine)
Qui sedet super gyrum terrae, et habitatores ejus sunt quasi locustae; qui extendit velut nihilum caelos, et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum;
Noun
g?rus (genitive g?r?); (masc.)
circle
a circular motion
a circuit, course, ring
by extension - place where horses are trained
:sleep:
Amen.
Thank you for that.
Showing again how important the Truth in the Bible is, as it relates to the nature of the earth.
Our world is a circle, not a ball, and it does not move.
-
Oh and how nasty they get in defense, truly as you say, never considering for one moment that they don't hold the patent on truth. You almost never get a decent response like, "Really? I've never heard of that. Please explain why you would believe such a thing." Rather, the stubborn dissenter's very first instinct is to reject first, then conjure ways to refute even the most basic and obvious facts no one can dispute like water seeking its own level. They can't stand the thought that they might be wrong about something as big as flat earth. So the heck what? First thing I did is wonder if maybe I really had suffered indoctrination, not assume I couldn't be wrong. Its amazing the lengths they go to protecting their ideas and egos. As if that were the actual goal! How strange their defenses are, too. Start to make a point, they change the subject. Show them no curve, they bring up latitude and longitude. Talk water sticking to the outside of a spinning ball, and they talk the direction water drains down their toilet. Show the boggling amount of dollars NASA gains from the lie, they call you a conspiracy nut. They evade, degrade, demand, snark, twist and rail with every insult they can hurl, then complain that you haven't answered all their questions, never having met even a kindergarten level of proof for what they believe! You said it so well above, but it reminded me how mad it makes me and I just had to vent.
This is the mirror, people. Take a good hard look.
There. I'm all better now. :soapbox:
Yes, I have never understood the anger. So much weeping and gnashing of teeth. So much ridicule. Zero thoughtful consideration.
Notice Neil decided he ought to attack who I am as a Catholic, rather than respond to the scale of curvature being completely wrong in this photo of the Iberian Peninsula.
They prove when they get personal they have no argument.
-
They prove when they get personal they have no argument.
There have been 2 pages of posts now since my response to your argument (the video about the starts). My response was perfectly reasonable. Since then, every single post has been personal attacks. There has been no response to the objections I raised explaining why the argument in the video was invalid. Who is getting personal here?
Can I get a source for that spacewalk image by the way? I'd like to see the video. The screenshot is a little fuzzy and I'm curious about the field of view of the camera.
-
Okay! Enough already to the couple of chatter boxes who think that just because some members have bowed out of this, gone over the top silly, topic that they are sitting on the Mt of Truth... please return to the OP and please provide "Scientific Proof Earth is Not a Globe."
I've not seen an "Iota" of evidence to make me even bat an eye. Just to some of the responses to me, I have seen a lack of experience in regards to reality and no knowledge of basic physics. Please dig a little deeper into the proper use of your intelligence and sign-off from these silly animated videos which, IMO, are making total fools of you.
-
They prove when they get personal they have no argument.
There have been 2 pages of posts now since my response to your argument (the video about the starts). My response was perfectly reasonable. Since then, every single post has been personal attacks. There has been no response to the objections I raised explaining why the argument in the video was invalid. Who is getting personal here?
Can I get a source for that spacewalk image by the way? I'd like to see the video. The screenshot is a little fuzzy and I'm curious about the field of view of the camera.
Yea, and I asked where do comets hide... still waiting for an answer. Guess there must not be a youtube video on that yet!
-
Can I get a source for that spacewalk image by the way? I'd like to see the video. The screenshot is a little fuzzy and I'm curious about the field of view of the camera.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html#.V8joFvkrKM9
They usually post the previous three hours of recorded streaming, but I don't know if they archive them, I've never checked.
I just made a screenshot of a moment when the horizon was more visible for a moment. The view is always changing, sometimes it looks straight down, sometimes it only looks at equipment. It very rarely shows the horizon, which I would imagine they cannot do much since it is flat...
-
Yea, and I asked where do comets hide... still waiting for an answer. Guess there must not be a youtube video on that yet!
Sorry, I missed that. I don't recall reading much about comets specifically, but I can reference some of my FE books later and find out. Usually, in the FE model, meteorites are theorized to be pieces of the solid firmament that have broken away and disintegrate.
As far as the visibility of comets, they do not "hide" - they simply cannot be seen. For example, an airplane at cruising altitude directly overhead on a clear day without a contrail is very difficult to see with the naked eye, until it reaches a lower angle of perspective closer to the horizon and you can see the sun glinting off of it.
Similarly, there was footage I posted of "dark bodies" that only became visible during a near-total solar eclipse. I would imagine the same would apply to a cometary body.
-
Still at it, eh?
Please provide reference to a flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
-
Still at it, eh?
Please provide reference to a flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
Can't do it? I didn't think so.
How could flat-earthers, who deny the reality of solar eclipses (and attempt to imagine dark bodies that don't exist to explain why the camera records what it does) and meteor showers (because meteors make no sense under a "dome" that separates their "flat" earth from the waters above their imaginary "dome"), ever dare to admit that prediction of solar eclipses or meteor showers are POSSIBLE? That would destroy the whole reason for their flatism in the first place.
By the way, this whole thread, "Scientific Proof..." contains nothing scientific supporting flat-earthism, let alone "proof!" -- only emotional platitudes and half-baked sweeping statements. Denial of reality is not science.
-
Denial of reality is not science.
This is especially ironic coming from you, Neil, since you deny the things you see with your own eyes. How can one have the cognitive dissonance to disbelieve their own eyes?
More later, I have friends in town for the holiday.
-
Denial of reality is not science.
This is especially ironic coming from you, Neil, since you deny the things you see with your own eyes. How can one have the cognitive dissonance to disbelieve their own eyes?
More later, I have friends in town for the holiday.
Where have I denied what I have seen with my own eyes? You're making stuff up, as usual.
Like the "dark bodies" you imagine to find in solar eclipses, when they're nothing but figments of your imagination.
You make stuff up all the time!!
I told you that I have seen with my own eyes the level projection of a 14,500 foot tall promontory over the horizon using a builder's level (an optical instrument, not a spirit level), and have seen with my own eyes that level lines projected in all directions (360 degrees) are dramatically higher over the horizon than all other objects on earth regardless of height, and by much more than by the difference of their elevation above sea level. This can only be the case if they are being seen beyond the curvature of a spheroid planet earth. Therefore, I have seen the immediate effect of the earth's curvature with my own eyes. If I were to deny THAT, then I'd be like you, denying the things I see with my own eyes.
What is so hard for you to understand about that? Or, do you just not WANT to understand? I suspect it's the latter.
Have a nice holiday!! :cheers:
.
-
Now, you'll have to take issue with Bishop Williamson.
You have said (in this very thread) that the moon does not reflect light from the sun (giving silly nonsensical excuses for this claim), but that instead, the moon generates its own light (without providing any explanation for the energy source or the mechanism of this light production).
So you had best get busy and correct the Bishop for daring to contradict your personal doctrine:
The human eye cannot stare at the sun, whereas it has no difficulty in gazing upon the moon. The spiritual eye of the human soul cannot behold the perfection of God as it is in itself, but it can look upon the perfection of Mary. Mary is like the moon with regard to the sun. By its light she is lit up, and that light is what she reflects upon yourselves, but she softens that light in a kind of spiritual mist by which it becomes bearable to behold for your limited nature. That is why for centuries it is her that I have been putting forward as a model for all of you that I wish to have as brothers, precisely as children of Mary, like myself.
She is the Mother. How sweet it is for children to look upon their mother! I gave her to you for that reason, so that you would have a gentle Majesty to behold, splendid enough to seize and to hold your gaze but not so brilliant as to dazzle your sight. Only to souls chosen out by me for special reasons which you cannot dispute have I shown myself in all the brilliance of the God-Man, absolute Intelligence and Perfection. However, the gift of that vision had to be accompanied by another gift to make living souls capable of enduring such knowledge of me without being annihilated by it.
Whereas all of you can look upon Mary. Not because she is like you, far from it! Her purity raises her so high that I, her Son and her God, treat her with veneration. Her perfection is so great that all Paradise bows before her throne which bathes in the changeless smile and everlasting brilliance of Our Threeness. But this brilliance which permeates and imbues her more than it does any other creature of God is tempered by the purest veils of her stainless flesh through which she shines like a star, gathering together all of God’s light and spreading it around like a gentle illumination upon all his creatures.
Our Lady is like the moon because she does not shine with her own light, but rather reflects the dazzling light of the sun which is too intense for us to gaze upon directly. Her softened light is bearable for us to gaze upon from our limited nature.
At Fatima, through her intercession, even the direct sight of the sun was softened for us to look at directly. That is called "the miracle of the sun."
That is, the moon does not shine with its own light (even while mw2016 says that it does), but REFLECTS the light of the sun.
.
-
Still at it, eh?
Please provide reference to a flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
Now, it has been 4 days and you still have not provided even one reference to any flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
Probably because no flat-earthers exist who can do those things. It would be against their nature.
Speaking of what I have seen with my own eyes, I have seen a total solar eclipse, first hand, and I have seen comets (which you claim cannot be seen!) and I have seen meteors. Furthermore, I have seen a most dramatic meteor shower first hand, which defies words to describe it. There were literally hundreds of meteors all flying overhead at the same moment. And I have never seen any video of that nor any description of it by meteorologists. So I'm not imagining something I saw described by someone else, because as far as I know, nobody has described it. But I saw it myself, and I was awake and it was real, so I know what I saw.
But then, there are no meteorologists who openly describe UFOs, either.
-
Here's another one. You had better get in touch with ALE Sky Canvas in Japan and inform them that they're wasting their money producing artificial meteor showers for the 2020 Japan Olympics because, according you mw2016, meteor showers are impossible.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/vHvyz3h-rRo[/youtube]
-
Now, you'll have to take issue with Bishop Williamson.
You have said (in this very thread) that the moon does not reflect light from the sun (giving silly nonsensical excuses for this claim), but that instead, the moon generates its own light (without providing any explanation for the energy source or the mechanism of this light production).
So you had best get busy and correct the Bishop for daring to contradict your personal doctrine:
The human eye cannot stare at the sun, whereas it has no difficulty in gazing upon the moon. The spiritual eye of the human soul cannot behold the perfection of God as it is in itself, but it can look upon the perfection of Mary. Mary is like the moon with regard to the sun. By its light she is lit up, and that light is what she reflects upon yourselves, but she softens that light in a kind of spiritual mist by which it becomes bearable to behold for your limited nature. That is why for centuries it is her that I have been putting forward as a model for all of you that I wish to have as brothers, precisely as children of Mary, like myself.
She is the Mother. How sweet it is for children to look upon their mother! I gave her to you for that reason, so that you would have a gentle Majesty to behold, splendid enough to seize and to hold your gaze but not so brilliant as to dazzle your sight. Only to souls chosen out by me for special reasons which you cannot dispute have I shown myself in all the brilliance of the God-Man, absolute Intelligence and Perfection. However, the gift of that vision had to be accompanied by another gift to make living souls capable of enduring such knowledge of me without being annihilated by it.
Whereas all of you can look upon Mary. Not because she is like you, far from it! Her purity raises her so high that I, her Son and her God, treat her with veneration. Her perfection is so great that all Paradise bows before her throne which bathes in the changeless smile and everlasting brilliance of Our Threeness. But this brilliance which permeates and imbues her more than it does any other creature of God is tempered by the purest veils of her stainless flesh through which she shines like a star, gathering together all of God’s light and spreading it around like a gentle illumination upon all his creatures.
Our Lady is like the moon because she does not shine with her own light, but rather reflects the dazzling light of the sun which is too intense for us to gaze upon directly. Her softened light is bearable for us to gaze upon from our limited nature.
At Fatima, through her intercession, even the direct sight of the sun was softened for us to look at directly. That is called "the miracle of the sun."
That is, the moon does not shine with its own light (even while mw2016 says that it does), but REFLECTS the light of the sun.
.
Are you kidding me? Bp. Williamson can draw whatever lovely analogy he likes, and it does not mean that the moon does not give its own light.
This idea is taken from the Bible:
"And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars." Genesis 1:16/DRV
Nowhere in Genesis does God say, "The lesser light reflects the light of the greater..."
-
Now, you'll have to take issue with Bishop Williamson.
You have said (in this very thread) that the moon does not reflect light from the sun (giving silly nonsensical excuses for this claim), but that instead, the moon generates its own light (without providing any explanation for the energy source or the mechanism of this light production).
So you had best get busy and correct the Bishop for daring to contradict your personal doctrine:
The human eye cannot stare at the sun, whereas it has no difficulty in gazing upon the moon. The spiritual eye of the human soul cannot behold the perfection of God as it is in itself, but it can look upon the perfection of Mary. Mary is like the moon with regard to the sun. By its light she is lit up, and that light is what she reflects upon yourselves, but she softens that light in a kind of spiritual mist by which it becomes bearable to behold for your limited nature. That is why for centuries it is her that I have been putting forward as a model for all of you that I wish to have as brothers, precisely as children of Mary, like myself.
She is the Mother. How sweet it is for children to look upon their mother! I gave her to you for that reason, so that you would have a gentle Majesty to behold, splendid enough to seize and to hold your gaze but not so brilliant as to dazzle your sight. Only to souls chosen out by me for special reasons which you cannot dispute have I shown myself in all the brilliance of the God-Man, absolute Intelligence and Perfection. However, the gift of that vision had to be accompanied by another gift to make living souls capable of enduring such knowledge of me without being annihilated by it.
Whereas all of you can look upon Mary. Not because she is like you, far from it! Her purity raises her so high that I, her Son and her God, treat her with veneration. Her perfection is so great that all Paradise bows before her throne which bathes in the changeless smile and everlasting brilliance of Our Threeness. But this brilliance which permeates and imbues her more than it does any other creature of God is tempered by the purest veils of her stainless flesh through which she shines like a star, gathering together all of God’s light and spreading it around like a gentle illumination upon all his creatures.
Our Lady is like the moon because she does not shine with her own light, but rather reflects the dazzling light of the sun which is too intense for us to gaze upon directly. Her softened light is bearable for us to gaze upon from our limited nature.
At Fatima, through her intercession, even the direct sight of the sun was softened for us to look at directly. That is called "the miracle of the sun."
That is, the moon does not shine with its own light (even while mw2016 says that it does), but REFLECTS the light of the sun.
.
Are you kidding me? Bp. Williamson can draw whatever lovely analogy he likes, and it does not mean that the moon does not give its own light.
This idea is taken from the Bible:
"And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars." Genesis 1:16/DRV
Nowhere in Genesis does God say, "The lesser light reflects the light of the greater..."
Are you a recovering protestant?
-
Still at it, eh?
Please provide reference to a flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
Now, it has been 4 days and you still have not provided even one reference to any flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
Probably because no flat-earthers exist who can do those things. It would be against their nature.
Speaking of what I have seen with my own eyes, I have seen a total solar eclipse, first hand, and I have seen comets (which you claim cannot be seen!) and I have seen meteors. Furthermore, I have seen a most dramatic meteor shower first hand, which defies words to describe it. There were literally hundreds of meteors all flying overhead at the same moment. And I have never seen any video of that nor any description of it by meteorologists. So I'm not imagining something I saw described by someone else, because as far as I know, nobody has described it. But I saw it myself, and I was awake and it was real, so I know what I saw.
But then, there are no meteorologists who openly describe UFOs, either.
The prediction of solar eclipses or meteor showers has nothing to do with whether the earth is flat or not. It is a simple scientific method applied to the observation of the reality around us.
As for seeing meteor showers, their explanation is, I admit more of a mystery for flat earthers than for round earthers. (but there are plenty of mysteries in science)
It does not prove that the earth is round.
Again it all comes back to round earthers being unable to explain why we can see objects up to a hundred miles away that should be around the horizon.
Refraction doesn't sufficiently explain it and the best explanation I had from someone was that light bends!
For most questions people should direct themselves to the faqs of the forum http://ifers.123.st/ before posting questions we already have the answer for.
-
Again it all comes back to round earthers being unable to explain why we can see objects up to a hundred miles away that should be around the horizon.
Refraction doesn't sufficiently explain it and the best explanation I had from someone was that light bends!
For most questions people should direct themselves to the faqs of the forum http://ifers.123.st/ before posting questions we already have the answer for.
Several of these objects that "shouldn't be visible" have been mentioned in this thread. In every case it has been clearly shown that if you do the math right, they should be visible, even without accounting for refraction. By all means, please bring up more examples if you have them.
As far as that forum goes, I started with some thread about "Direct Vision, Rationality, Realism, and Common-Sense". Some choice quotes from that steaming pile of nonsense:
We have been deceived into believing, that we possess (Euclidean) vision, incapable of sensing an infinite, non-Euclidean universe. The opposite is true. Our vision is non-Euclidean and we are experiencing a finite Euclidean reality.
:laugh2: Broad sweeping statements with no backing. Also nonsensical. But this is what his entire "argument" is based off of.
In mathematics, many imaginary concepts have been introduced such as zero, infinity, negative numbers, irrational numbers, etc., all of which have no foundation in reality
And now our author shows us that he hasn't the faintest clue how mathematics or numbers work. Moving on...
-
Still at it, eh?
Please provide reference to a flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
Now, it has been 4 days and you still have not provided even one reference to any flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
Probably because no flat-earthers exist who can do those things. It would be against their nature.
The prediction of solar eclipses or meteor showers has nothing to do with whether the earth is flat or not. It is a simple scientific method applied to the observation of the reality around us.
EXACTLY.
Thank you for this!
What do eclipse predictions have to do with anything, Neil? I don't know what you're trying to ask.
-
Now, you'll have to take issue with Bishop Williamson.
You have said (in this very thread) that the moon does not reflect light from the sun (giving silly nonsensical excuses for this claim), but that instead, the moon generates its own light (without providing any explanation for the energy source or the mechanism of this light production).
So you had best get busy and correct the Bishop for daring to contradict your personal doctrine:
The human eye cannot stare at the sun, whereas it has no difficulty in gazing upon the moon. The spiritual eye of the human soul cannot behold the perfection of God as it is in itself, but it can look upon the perfection of Mary. Mary is like the moon with regard to the sun. By its light she is lit up, and that light is what she reflects upon yourselves, but she softens that light in a kind of spiritual mist by which it becomes bearable to behold for your limited nature. That is why for centuries it is her that I have been putting forward as a model for all of you that I wish to have as brothers, precisely as children of Mary, like myself.
She is the Mother. How sweet it is for children to look upon their mother! I gave her to you for that reason, so that you would have a gentle Majesty to behold, splendid enough to seize and to hold your gaze but not so brilliant as to dazzle your sight. Only to souls chosen out by me for special reasons which you cannot dispute have I shown myself in all the brilliance of the God-Man, absolute Intelligence and Perfection. However, the gift of that vision had to be accompanied by another gift to make living souls capable of enduring such knowledge of me without being annihilated by it.
Whereas all of you can look upon Mary. Not because she is like you, far from it! Her purity raises her so high that I, her Son and her God, treat her with veneration. Her perfection is so great that all Paradise bows before her throne which bathes in the changeless smile and everlasting brilliance of Our Threeness. But this brilliance which permeates and imbues her more than it does any other creature of God is tempered by the purest veils of her stainless flesh through which she shines like a star, gathering together all of God’s light and spreading it around like a gentle illumination upon all his creatures.
Our Lady is like the moon because she does not shine with her own light, but rather reflects the dazzling light of the sun which is too intense for us to gaze upon directly. Her softened light is bearable for us to gaze upon from our limited nature.
At Fatima, through her intercession, even the direct sight of the sun was softened for us to look at directly. That is called "the miracle of the sun."
That is, the moon does not shine with its own light (even while mw2016 says that it does), but REFLECTS the light of the sun.
.
Are you kidding me? Bp. Williamson can draw whatever lovely analogy he likes, and it does not mean that the moon does not give its own light.
This idea is taken from the Bible:
"And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars." Genesis 1:16/DRV
Nowhere in Genesis does God say, "The lesser light reflects the light of the greater..."
Are you a recovering protestant?
Excuse me, but are you pointing the gun at yourself or what? Personal attacks are nothing less than friendly fire on oneself. It is provable that the sun and moon put out two different lights. Use your noggin and ask how.
-
They prove when they get personal they have no argument.
There have been 2 pages of posts now since my response to your argument (the video about the starts). My response was perfectly reasonable. Since then, every single post has been personal attacks. There has been no response to the objections I raised explaining why the argument in the video was invalid. Who is getting personal here?
Can I get a source for that spacewalk image by the way? I'd like to see the video. The screenshot is a little fuzzy and I'm curious about the field of view of the camera.
Yea, and I asked where do comets hide... still waiting for an answer. Guess there must not be a youtube video on that yet!
Yea, and I'm still waiting for some explanation for lack of curvature.
-
Still at it, eh?
Please provide reference to a flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
Flat earth is well docuмented for explaining how easily eclipses and meteor showers operate, but since this is about your education, you'll need to go find it.
-
Still at it, eh?
Please provide reference to a flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
Can't do it? I didn't think so.
How could flat-earthers, who deny the reality of solar eclipses (and attempt to imagine dark bodies that don't exist to explain why the camera records what it does) and meteor showers (because meteors make no sense under a "dome" that separates their "flat" earth from the waters above their imaginary "dome"), ever dare to admit that prediction of solar eclipses or meteor showers are POSSIBLE? That would destroy the whole reason for their flatism in the first place.
By the way, this whole thread, "Scientific Proof..." contains nothing scientific supporting flat-earthism, let alone "proof!" -- only emotional platitudes and half-baked sweeping statements. Denial of reality is not science.
There is far less proof, as in zero, for moving ball earth.
-
The moon does not give off its own light. It reflects light. If the moon gave off its own light, the phases of the moon would be impossible. That is all I will say in this thread, for it is clear it has run its course. One side will not change the other.
I cannot believe there have been 70 pages worth of "dialogue" to discuss something that receives so little coverage in the Scripture. The concept of a flat-earth has not been taught as infallible doctrine (I have not seen any official, infallible teaching from the Church on this matter).
As you discuss this or other topics, never forget that you are dealing with other people, and that at all times, charity and patience must be offered, despite the disagreements going on.
Please move on from this subject, as it has demonstrated only divisive tendencies.
-
The moon does not give off its own light. It reflects light. If the moon gave off its own light, the phases of the moon would be impossible. That is all I will say in this thread, for it is clear it has run its course. One side will not change the other.
I cannot believe there have been 70 pages worth of "dialogue" to discuss something that receives so little coverage in the Scripture. The concept of a flat-earth has not been taught as infallible doctrine (I have not seen any official, infallible teaching from the Church on this matter).
As you discuss this or other topics, never forget that you are dealing with other people, and that at all times, charity and patience must be offered, despite the disagreements going on.
Please move on from this subject, as it has demonstrated only divisive tendencies.
Scripture cannot be contradicted nonetheless and heliocentrism denies scripture outright as the Pope declared in 1633 officially during the Galileo affair. There is a lot at stake here and buying the lies of the heliocentric refabricators is a dangerous proposition, if not downright heretical because it leads to atheism, evolution and the worship of Satan. You are mistaken about the sun and moon. Moonlight is cold and silvery, sunlight is warm and golden. Moonlight putrefies and cools, sunlight preserves and warms. Take the temperature in the full moonlight and then take the temperature under an outdoor cabana. The temperature will be cooler in the direct moonlight. Do the same with the sun. The results will be the opposite. The powers that be tell you that the moon reflects the sun, but they do not tell you that each creature has its own properties and different kinds of light.
-
Now, you'll have to take issue with Bishop Williamson.
You have said (in this very thread) that the moon does not reflect light from the sun (giving silly nonsensical excuses for this claim), but that instead, the moon generates its own light (without providing any explanation for the energy source or the mechanism of this light production).
So you had best get busy and correct the Bishop for daring to contradict your personal doctrine:
The human eye cannot stare at the sun, whereas it has no difficulty in gazing upon the moon. The spiritual eye of the human soul cannot behold the perfection of God as it is in itself, but it can look upon the perfection of Mary. Mary is like the moon with regard to the sun. By its light she is lit up, and that light is what she reflects upon yourselves, but she softens that light in a kind of spiritual mist by which it becomes bearable to behold for your limited nature. That is why for centuries it is her that I have been putting forward as a model for all of you that I wish to have as brothers, precisely as children of Mary, like myself.
She is the Mother. How sweet it is for children to look upon their mother! I gave her to you for that reason, so that you would have a gentle Majesty to behold, splendid enough to seize and to hold your gaze but not so brilliant as to dazzle your sight. Only to souls chosen out by me for special reasons which you cannot dispute have I shown myself in all the brilliance of the God-Man, absolute Intelligence and Perfection. However, the gift of that vision had to be accompanied by another gift to make living souls capable of enduring such knowledge of me without being annihilated by it.
Whereas all of you can look upon Mary. Not because she is like you, far from it! Her purity raises her so high that I, her Son and her God, treat her with veneration. Her perfection is so great that all Paradise bows before her throne which bathes in the changeless smile and everlasting brilliance of Our Threeness. But this brilliance which permeates and imbues her more than it does any other creature of God is tempered by the purest veils of her stainless flesh through which she shines like a star, gathering together all of God’s light and spreading it around like a gentle illumination upon all his creatures.
Our Lady is like the moon because she does not shine with her own light, but rather reflects the dazzling light of the sun which is too intense for us to gaze upon directly. Her softened light is bearable for us to gaze upon from our limited nature.
At Fatima, through her intercession, even the direct sight of the sun was softened for us to look at directly. That is called "the miracle of the sun."
That is, the moon does not shine with its own light (even while mw2016 says that it does), but REFLECTS the light of the sun.
.
Are you kidding me? Bp. Williamson can draw whatever lovely analogy he likes, and it does not mean that the moon does not give its own light.
This idea is taken from the Bible:
"And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars." Genesis 1:16/DRV
Nowhere in Genesis does God say, "The lesser light reflects the light of the greater..."
Are you a recovering protestant?
Personal attacks are nothing less than friendly fire on oneself.
Not intended as a "personal attack." Simply observing the protestantesqueness with which she and the rest of the flat-earthers approach this subject. Y'all sound like a bunch of backwoods uneducated protestants. Catholics have historically been more sophisticated than this bottom-feeding protestant private interpretation and quoting laymen as authority. Sure as hell not pointing at myself. I have simply lived among a bunch of protestants that y'all sound just like and recognize your banter with an annoying familiarity.
-
Now, you'll have to take issue with Bishop Williamson.
You have said (in this very thread) that the moon does not reflect light from the sun (giving silly nonsensical excuses for this claim), but that instead, the moon generates its own light (without providing any explanation for the energy source or the mechanism of this light production).
So you had best get busy and correct the Bishop for daring to contradict your personal doctrine:
The human eye cannot stare at the sun, whereas it has no difficulty in gazing upon the moon. The spiritual eye of the human soul cannot behold the perfection of God as it is in itself, but it can look upon the perfection of Mary. Mary is like the moon with regard to the sun. By its light she is lit up, and that light is what she reflects upon yourselves, but she softens that light in a kind of spiritual mist by which it becomes bearable to behold for your limited nature. That is why for centuries it is her that I have been putting forward as a model for all of you that I wish to have as brothers, precisely as children of Mary, like myself.
She is the Mother. How sweet it is for children to look upon their mother! I gave her to you for that reason, so that you would have a gentle Majesty to behold, splendid enough to seize and to hold your gaze but not so brilliant as to dazzle your sight. Only to souls chosen out by me for special reasons which you cannot dispute have I shown myself in all the brilliance of the God-Man, absolute Intelligence and Perfection. However, the gift of that vision had to be accompanied by another gift to make living souls capable of enduring such knowledge of me without being annihilated by it.
Whereas all of you can look upon Mary. Not because she is like you, far from it! Her purity raises her so high that I, her Son and her God, treat her with veneration. Her perfection is so great that all Paradise bows before her throne which bathes in the changeless smile and everlasting brilliance of Our Threeness. But this brilliance which permeates and imbues her more than it does any other creature of God is tempered by the purest veils of her stainless flesh through which she shines like a star, gathering together all of God’s light and spreading it around like a gentle illumination upon all his creatures.
Our Lady is like the moon because she does not shine with her own light, but rather reflects the dazzling light of the sun which is too intense for us to gaze upon directly. Her softened light is bearable for us to gaze upon from our limited nature.
At Fatima, through her intercession, even the direct sight of the sun was softened for us to look at directly. That is called "the miracle of the sun."
That is, the moon does not shine with its own light (even while mw2016 says that it does), but REFLECTS the light of the sun.
.
Are you kidding me? Bp. Williamson can draw whatever lovely analogy he likes, and it does not mean that the moon does not give its own light.
This idea is taken from the Bible:
"And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars." Genesis 1:16/DRV
Nowhere in Genesis does God say, "The lesser light reflects the light of the greater..."
Are you a recovering protestant?
Personal attacks are nothing less than friendly fire on oneself.
Not intended as a "personal attack." Simply observing the protestantesqueness with which she and the rest of the flat-earthers approach this subject. Y'all sound like a bunch of backwoods uneducated protestants. Catholics have historically been more sophisticated than this bottom-feeding protestant private interpretation and quoting laymen as authority. Sure as hell not pointing at myself. I have simply lived among a bunch of protestants that y'all sound just like and recognize your banter with an annoying familiarity.
The problem for you is, that earth is not a globe. Globalism is a religion, atheistic, Satanic, source for evolution, Big Bang, millions year old earth and a host of other modern notions including global warming. Calling us protestant for telling the truth is an oxymoron and certainly doesn't fit.
-
The moon does not give off its own light. It reflects light. If the moon gave off its own light, the phases of the moon would be impossible. That is all I will say in this thread, for it is clear it has run its course. One side will not change the other.
I cannot believe there have been 70 pages worth of "dialogue" to discuss something that receives so little coverage in the Scripture. The concept of a flat-earth has not been taught as infallible doctrine (I have not seen any official, infallible teaching from the Church on this matter).
As you discuss this or other topics, never forget that you are dealing with other people, and that at all times, charity and patience must be offered, despite the disagreements going on.
Please move on from this subject, as it has demonstrated only divisive tendencies.
Scripture cannot be contradicted nonetheless and heliocentrism denies scripture outright as the Pope declared in 1633 officially during the Galileo affair. There is a lot at stake here and buying the lies of the heliocentric refabricators is a dangerous proposition, if not downright heretical because it leads to atheism, evolution and the worship of Satan. You are mistaken about the sun and moon. Moonlight is cold and silvery, sunlight is warm and golden. Moonlight putrefies and cools, sunlight preserves and warms. Take the temperature in the full moonlight and then take the temperature under an outdoor cabana. The temperature will be cooler in the direct moonlight. Do the same with the sun. The results will be the opposite. The powers that be tell you that the moon reflects the sun, but they do not tell you that each creature has its own properties and different kinds of light.
I never mentioned heliocentrism in my previous post, as I am a geocentrist. The moon reflects light, but not much light. It can reflect heat, but not much heat at all. The materials of which the moon is comprised changes the way the reflected light is seen and reflected. It is said that the moon absorbs more light than it reflects back, which explains the difference between the light of the Sun and the reflected light of the moon. Moreover, the luminosity of the Moon, or the lack of it, has nothing to do with the topic of heliocentrism or even that of the flat-earth model. It is a separate subject.
I have not commented on the flat-earth concept, as it seems the whole conversation has not been productive in any way. That is one reason why I am asking for this whole thread to end. It has gone nowhere, and has caused more harm than good.
-
The moon does not give off its own light. It reflects light. If the moon gave off its own light, the phases of the moon would be impossible. That is all I will say in this thread, for it is clear it has run its course. One side will not change the other.
I cannot believe there have been 70 pages worth of "dialogue" to discuss something that receives so little coverage in the Scripture. The concept of a flat-earth has not been taught as infallible doctrine (I have not seen any official, infallible teaching from the Church on this matter).
As you discuss this or other topics, never forget that you are dealing with other people, and that at all times, charity and patience must be offered, despite the disagreements going on.
Please move on from this subject, as it has demonstrated only divisive tendencies.
Scripture cannot be contradicted nonetheless and heliocentrism denies scripture outright as the Pope declared in 1633 officially during the Galileo affair. There is a lot at stake here and buying the lies of the heliocentric refabricators is a dangerous proposition, if not downright heretical because it leads to atheism, evolution and the worship of Satan. You are mistaken about the sun and moon. Moonlight is cold and silvery, sunlight is warm and golden. Moonlight putrefies and cools, sunlight preserves and warms. Take the temperature in the full moonlight and then take the temperature under an outdoor cabana. The temperature will be cooler in the direct moonlight. Do the same with the sun. The results will be the opposite. The powers that be tell you that the moon reflects the sun, but they do not tell you that each creature has its own properties and different kinds of light.
I never mentioned heliocentrism in my previous post, as I am a geocentrist. The moon reflects light, but not much light. It can reflect heat, but not much heat at all. The materials of which the moon is comprised changes the way the reflected light is seen and reflected. It is said that the moon absorbs more light than it reflects back, which explains the difference between the light of the Sun and the reflected light of the moon. Moreover, the luminosity of the Moon, or the lack of it, has nothing to do with the topic of heliocentrism or even that of the flat-earth model. It is a separate subject.
I have not commented on the flat-earth concept, as it seems the whole conversation has not been productive in any way. That is one reason why I am asking for this whole thread to end. It has gone nowhere, and has caused more harm than good.
Geocentrism is by definition, flat stationary earth. Heliocentrism is round moving earth and has been condemned. Heliocentrism is the science of the Pythagorean doctrine and is 100% an atheist lie and the foundation for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The moon does not reflect heat or sunlight but has light of its own. You need to research rather than reject the truth before you've looked into it. The luminosity of the moon as it is, not as we have been told by atheist scientists has everything to do with heliocentrism but you'd have to look into the subject before rejecting it in order to know.
-
Geocentrism is by definition, flat stationary earth. Heliocentrism is round moving earth and has been condemned.
Most geocentrists believe in a spherical stationary earth, not a flat one, like Richard Ibranyi and Father Joseph Pfeiffer and John Salza and Robert Sungenis, and in history, like Dante and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Sure the monk Cosmas believed in a flat earth, but most of the saints that I am aware of believed it was spherical.
-
Geocentrism is by definition, flat stationary earth. Heliocentrism is round moving earth and has been condemned.
Most geocentrists believe in a spherical stationary earth, not a flat one, like Richard Ibranyi and Father Joseph Pfeiffer and John Salza and Robert Sungenis, and in history, like Dante and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Sure the monk Cosmas believed in a flat earth, but most of the saints that I am aware of believed it was spherical.
You are right, modern geocentrists do believe in spherical stationary earth, but they have no proof of curvature except NASA fake photos.
-
Geocentrism is by definition, flat stationary earth. Heliocentrism is round moving earth and has been condemned. Heliocentrism is the science of the Pythagorean doctrine and is 100% an atheist lie and the foundation for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The moon does not reflect heat or sunlight but has light of its own. You need to research rather than reject the truth before you've looked into it. The luminosity of the moon as it is, not as we have been told by atheist scientists has everything to do with heliocentrism but you'd have to look into the subject before rejecting it in order to know.
- - -
Geocentrism is not, by definition, a flat, stationary earth. The geocentric model can use the round earth.
The moon does not give off its own light. It is a rock, unlike the sun, which is gas. The unlit shadows cast by rocks and other outcroppings of the uneven surface of the moon can be seen when studied with a high powered telescope. If the moon gave off its own light, there should be no shadows, no dark areas. It is clear the shadows are the result of another light source shining on the moon. It is also clear that the Moon should have no phases, such as the half moon, quarter moon and so on, if the moon gave off its own light. Yet, this is what we see. The moon is often cast in total darkness, which would be impossible if the moon were self-illuminated.
I have studied the moon since before I could read. I know the moon fairly well.
As for flat earth, this concept is full of discrepancies, such as the rising and setting of the sun and the moon, the speed of the heavenly bodies, the distortions of continents on a flat earth map, the exaggeration of oceans, and more.
If the earth were flat, the sun and moon would rise and set differently from what we can observe. The sun and moon would appear smaller at rise and at set, and each would appear and measure as being larger when each is at its zenith (just overhead of the viewer). This is much like when a car passes an observer on a flat road; the car is larger when the car is closest to the viewer, and smaller when the car is in either distance. However, this never happens with the moon or the sun. The sun and the moon remain the same, measurable size from rise all the way to set. This suggests that the sun and moon go around a round earth, rather than going in circles over a flat earth.
The geocentric model can support the round model of the earth. The Church has not declared either the flat earth or the round earth models to be infallible dogma. Given this, it is unwise to allude to geocentric, round-earth proponents to be buying into the lies of "atheism, evolution and the worship of Satan."
This bickering is pointless. No one will go to hell because they follow a geocentric, spherical earth. It is not a sin. It is not against Scripture. It is not against the teaching of the Church.
-
Geocentrism is by definition, flat stationary earth. Heliocentrism is round moving earth and has been condemned. Heliocentrism is the science of the Pythagorean doctrine and is 100% an atheist lie and the foundation for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The moon does not reflect heat or sunlight but has light of its own. You need to research rather than reject the truth before you've looked into it. The luminosity of the moon as it is, not as we have been told by atheist scientists has everything to do with heliocentrism but you'd have to look into the subject before rejecting it in order to know.
- - -
Geocentrism is not, by definition, a flat, stationary earth. The geocentric model can use the round earth.
The moon does not give off its own light. It is a rock, unlike the sun, which is gas. The unlit shadows cast by rocks and other outcroppings of the uneven surface of the moon can be seen when studied with a high powered telescope. If the moon gave off its own light, there should be no shadows, no dark areas. It is clear the shadows are the result of another light source shining on the moon. It is also clear that the Moon should have no phases, such as the half moon, quarter moon and so on, if the moon gave off its own light. Yet, this is what we see. The moon is often cast in total darkness, which would be impossible if the moon were self-illuminated.
I have studied the moon since before I could read. I know the moon fairly well.
As for flat earth, this concept is full of discrepancies, such as the rising and setting of the sun and the moon, the speed of the heavenly bodies, the distortions of continents on a flat earth map, the exaggeration of oceans, and more.
If the earth were flat, the sun and moon would rise and set differently from what we can observe. The sun and moon would appear smaller at rise and at set, and each would appear and measure as being larger when each is at its zenith (just overhead of the viewer). This is much like when a car passes an observer on a flat road; the car is larger when the car is closest to the viewer, and smaller when the car is in either distance. However, this never happens with the moon or the sun. The sun and the moon remain the same, measurable size from rise all the way to set. This suggests that the sun and moon go around a round earth, rather than going in circles over a flat earth.
The geocentric model can support the round model of the earth. The Church has not declared either the flat earth or the round earth models to be infallible dogma. Given this, it is unwise to allude to geocentric, round-earth proponents to be buying into the lies of "atheism, evolution and the worship of Satan."
This bickering is pointless. No one will go to hell because they follow a geocentric, spherical earth. It is not a sin. It is not against Scripture. It is not against the teaching of the Church.
I do not have nearly as much of a problem believing geocentrism as believing the earth is flat. Of course, I will believe whatever dogma is infallibly proclaimed by the Church regardless of personal hang-ups. The intellectual sloppiness/dishonesty of the flat-earthers didn't even address your kind of geocentrism. My simple science-challenged brain just can't get passed that I have never heard of anybody literally falling off the edge of the earth. But I am not nearly as dug in on the earth not being a geocentrically positioned sphere.
-
I cannot believe there have been 70 pages worth of "dialogue" to discuss something that receives so little coverage in the Scripture. The concept of a flat-earth has not been taught as infallible doctrine (I have not seen any official, infallible teaching from the Church on this matter).
How did you come to that conclusion when there are DOZENS of scripture passages that reference the flat earth? Your comment on " has not been taught as infallible doctrine" is also bizarre. So, what do you call the Bible then, if it is not an infallible source of doctrine??
:fryingpan:
-
Y'all sound like a bunch of backwoods uneducated protestants. Catholics have historically been more sophisticated than this bottom-feeding protestant private interpretation and quoting laymen as authority. Sure as hell not pointing at myself. I have simply lived among a bunch of protestants that y'all sound just like and recognize your banter with an annoying familiarity.
Gee, that's funny.
You just called me "back-woods" yet YOU used the phrase "y'all" TWICE in one paragraph.
:fryingpan:
-
- - -
Geocentrism is not, by definition, a flat, stationary earth. The geocentric model can use the round earth.
The geocentric model can support the round model of the earth. The Church has not declared either the flat earth or the round earth models to be infallible dogma. Given this, it is unwise to allude to geocentric, round-earth proponents to be buying into the lies of "atheism, evolution and the worship of Satan."
No one will go to hell because they follow a geocentric, spherical earth.
Geocentrism does NOT work with a ball earth, under the heliocentrists' laws of physics. The earth does not possess the size or mass to have anything go around it.
You can roll the dice with your soul if you like, I choose to believe ALL of the Bible.
-
Geocentrism is by definition, flat stationary earth. Heliocentrism is round moving earth and has been condemned. Heliocentrism is the science of the Pythagorean doctrine and is 100% an atheist lie and the foundation for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The moon does not reflect heat or sunlight but has light of its own. You need to research rather than reject the truth before you've looked into it. The luminosity of the moon as it is, not as we have been told by atheist scientists has everything to do with heliocentrism but you'd have to look into the subject before rejecting it in order to know.
- - -
Geocentrism is not, by definition, a flat, stationary earth. The geocentric model can use the round earth.
Oh, but it is historically always been flat...to the chagrin of the modern geocentrists who are getting sideswiped with reality as we speak. All Christendom knew was geocentric flat cosmology. The only reason people think earth is a ball is because an apostate devil worshiping lineup of atheist scientists like Copernicus, Keplar, Newton and Einstein were exclusively aloud to speak. Experiments contrary to heliocentrism prove so much, but have been systematically brushed aside.
The moon does not give off its own light. It is a rock, unlike the sun, which is gas. The unlit shadows cast by rocks and other outcroppings of the uneven surface of the moon can be seen when studied with a high powered telescope. If the moon gave off its own light, there should be no shadows, no dark areas. It is clear the shadows are the result of another light source shining on the moon. It is also clear that the Moon should have no phases, such as the half moon, quarter moon and so on, if the moon gave off its own light. Yet, this is what we see. The moon is often cast in total darkness, which would be impossible if the moon were self-illuminated.
Knowing the truth should be important enough to you to be open to learning. The sun is not a ball of gas, but electric. The entire universe is electric. Think about lightening and the Tesla experiments which prove this correct. What you're saying about the moon is easily proven otherwise, even by your self. I told you that you can do experiments for observing the difference in the two lights. First, you ought to read scripture however because it says God created two great lights: Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.
I have studied the moon since before I could read. I know the moon fairly well.
I have too, and I believed as you did because that's what I was taught. The question you must answer for yourself is: Are they lying? Is it possible that since they lie about global warming, moving earth, evolution, the moon landing, they might actually tell the truth about creation?
As for flat earth, this concept is full of discrepancies, such as the rising and setting of the sun and the moon, the speed of the heavenly bodies, the distortions of continents on a flat earth map, the exaggeration of oceans, and more.
That's only because no one explained it to you. It works even better than the ridiculous way modern science describes the ball. Do you really think its possible that earth is spinning 1050 mph, 67,000 mph around the sun, and barrels a whopping 550,000 mph through the galaxy? If they lied about all that commotion, what makes you think they told you the truth about it being a ball?
If the earth were flat, the sun and moon would rise and set differently from what we can observe. The sun and moon would appear smaller at rise and at set, and each would appear and measure as being larger when each is at its zenith (just overhead of the viewer). This is much like when a car passes an observer on a flat road; the car is larger when the car is closest to the viewer, and smaller when the car is in either distance. However, this never happens with the moon or the sun. The sun and the moon remain the same, measurable size from rise all the way to set. This suggests that the sun and moon go around a round earth, rather than going in circles over a flat earth.
Its funny to me that you skeptics critique what is obviously true, but never bat an eye at the garbage you've been spoon fed your whole life. Not being rude, just stunned that you are so quick to scoff at something you know so little about. Have you ever really considered stuff like: How does the surface of water curve around a ball earth? How does water cling to the outside of a ball? How does water surface curve on the earth ball but never anywhere else? How is it that no matter how high one ascends, the horizon always rises to the eye of the viewer? The horizon must drop as one ascends if earth were a ball. I really don't get why you guys never question what should be questioned.
The geocentric model can support the round model of the earth. The Church has not declared either the flat earth or the round earth models to be infallible dogma. Given this, it is unwise to allude to geocentric, round-earth proponents to be buying into the lies of "atheism, evolution and the worship of Satan."
Ok, lets pretend that's true. It can also support the flat model, too. Why is that so anathema to you? Given a little time and a critical but open mind, I can prove heliocentrism is the science of atheism.
This bickering is pointless. No one will go to hell because they follow a geocentric, spherical earth. It is not a sin. It is not against Scripture.
Oh, but it is against scripture. Scripture describes a dome over the earth with water above it in Genesis. But you'd rather believe in space so scripture must not be accurate, right? Scripture describes 4 corners of the earth. But you'd rather believe it wasn't describing earth literally? Scripture talks about the face of the earth. You can't have a spherical face. Scripture is not contradictory. There is so much more to know, Catholic stuff you should be instantly fascinated in hearing about rather than refer to the discussion as bickering. It kind of reminds me of the people complaining that Jesus was a trouble maker.
It is not against the teaching of the Church.
-
Geocentrism is by definition, flat stationary earth. Heliocentrism is round moving earth and has been condemned. Heliocentrism is the science of the Pythagorean doctrine and is 100% an atheist lie and the foundation for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The moon does not reflect heat or sunlight but has light of its own. You need to research rather than reject the truth before you've looked into it. The luminosity of the moon as it is, not as we have been told by atheist scientists has everything to do with heliocentrism but you'd have to look into the subject before rejecting it in order to know.
- - -
Geocentrism is not, by definition, a flat, stationary earth. The geocentric model can use the round earth.
The moon does not give off its own light. It is a rock, unlike the sun, which is gas. The unlit shadows cast by rocks and other outcroppings of the uneven surface of the moon can be seen when studied with a high powered telescope. If the moon gave off its own light, there should be no shadows, no dark areas. It is clear the shadows are the result of another light source shining on the moon. It is also clear that the Moon should have no phases, such as the half moon, quarter moon and so on, if the moon gave off its own light. Yet, this is what we see. The moon is often cast in total darkness, which would be impossible if the moon were self-illuminated.
I have studied the moon since before I could read. I know the moon fairly well.
As for flat earth, this concept is full of discrepancies, such as the rising and setting of the sun and the moon, the speed of the heavenly bodies, the distortions of continents on a flat earth map, the exaggeration of oceans, and more.
If the earth were flat, the sun and moon would rise and set differently from what we can observe. The sun and moon would appear smaller at rise and at set, and each would appear and measure as being larger when each is at its zenith (just overhead of the viewer). This is much like when a car passes an observer on a flat road; the car is larger when the car is closest to the viewer, and smaller when the car is in either distance. However, this never happens with the moon or the sun. The sun and the moon remain the same, measurable size from rise all the way to set. This suggests that the sun and moon go around a round earth, rather than going in circles over a flat earth.
The geocentric model can support the round model of the earth. The Church has not declared either the flat earth or the round earth models to be infallible dogma. Given this, it is unwise to allude to geocentric, round-earth proponents to be buying into the lies of "atheism, evolution and the worship of Satan."
This bickering is pointless. No one will go to hell because they follow a geocentric, spherical earth. It is not a sin. It is not against Scripture. It is not against the teaching of the Church.
I do not have nearly as much of a problem believing geocentrism as believing the earth is flat. Of course, I will believe whatever dogma is infallibly proclaimed by the Church regardless of personal hang-ups. The intellectual sloppiness/dishonesty of the flat-earthers didn't even address your kind of geocentrism. My simple science-challenged brain just can't get passed that I have never heard of anybody literally falling off the edge of the earth. But I am not nearly as dug in on the earth not being a geocentrically positioned sphere.
Yours is literally the perfect response back to someone who proposes flat earth. It is Catholic, humble, skeptical, but open. Let me tell you up front, there's a lot we don't know, but we are certain there is zero curvature commensurate with a 25,000 circuмference ball as is claimed. It is a necessary reflection one must answer for themselves... The horizon always rises to the eye of the viewer no matter how high one goes. 15,000, 18,000 20,000 feet up the horizon is still at eye level. How can that be if earth is a ball? The horizon should drop away and fall below the eye of the viewer. Just 90 miles distant, one should see a curve downward of one full mile on an earth 25,000 miles in circuмference. Yet that never happens.
-
Again it all comes back to round earthers being unable to explain why we can see objects up to a hundred miles away that should be around the horizon.
Refraction doesn't sufficiently explain it and the best explanation I had from someone was that light bends!
For most questions people should direct themselves to the faqs of the forum http://ifers.123.st/ before posting questions we already have the answer for.
Several of these objects that "shouldn't be visible" have been mentioned in this thread. In every case it has been clearly shown that if you do the math right, they should be visible, even without accounting for refraction. By all means, please bring up more examples if you have them.
As far as that forum goes, I started with some thread about "Direct Vision, Rationality, Realism, and Common-Sense". Some choice quotes from that steaming pile of nonsense:
We have been deceived into believing, that we possess (Euclidean) vision, incapable of sensing an infinite, non-Euclidean universe. The opposite is true. Our vision is non-Euclidean and we are experiencing a finite Euclidean reality.
:laugh2: Broad sweeping statements with no backing. Also nonsensical. But this is what his entire "argument" is based off of.
In mathematics, many imaginary concepts have been introduced such as zero, infinity, negative numbers, irrational numbers, etc., all of which have no foundation in reality
And now our author shows us that he hasn't the faintest clue how mathematics or numbers work. Moving on...
if you check out this link http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
from no. 67 onwards, you have a plethora of examples of objects that should not be visible. There's no need to re-hash them all here.
It is precisely the mathematics that is the flat earthers greatest support. NASA and flat earthers agree on the figure in discussion: 25000 miles in circuмference.
The curvature of the earth increases EXPONENTIALLY the further it goes away from you. This is spherical trigonometry 101. So much so is this curvature that after the 3rd mile there should be a 72 inch difference. There's a little diagram on that page to show this.
As for the forum. It is not even a Christian forum, let alone a traditional Catholic one. So it is normal you will get some funky stuff on it. But it is the best, non jew supporting forum out there on the flat earth. It is a start, until traditional Catholics are able to wake up fully to this truth.
-
I cannot believe there have been 70 pages worth of "dialogue" to discuss something that receives so little coverage in the Scripture. The concept of a flat-earth has not been taught as infallible doctrine (I have not seen any official, infallible teaching from the Church on this matter).
How did you come to that conclusion when there are DOZENS of scripture passages that reference the flat earth? Your comment on " has not been taught as infallible doctrine" is also bizarre. So, what do you call the Bible then, if it is not an infallible source of doctrine??
:fryingpan:
I did not say there are dozens of Scripture passages that reference the flat earth. The Scriptures give little coverage as to the flat or spherical nature of the earth. What can be said is that the Scriptures definitively promulgates neither a flat earth theory nor a round earth theory.
The Bible is infallible, but the interpretation of a flat earth is not infallible, and neither is that of the round earth. No one will be sent to hell for ascribing to a round earth.
We can argue all day about various observances of the earth, and how these can either support or debunk either theory. As for myself, I do not agree with a flat earth, as there are too many variables which cannot, for my edification, be properly explained (though I am always willing to listen to a good and reasonable argument for the flat earth, and have watched many videos on the subject). I suppose the same could be said for a round earth, that there are variables as well that one may not understand.
Neither side of this discussion can be declared as infallible, and the Church has not officially taught one way or the other. This much we do know.
-
Geocentrism is by definition, flat stationary earth. Heliocentrism is round moving earth and has been condemned. Heliocentrism is the science of the Pythagorean doctrine and is 100% an atheist lie and the foundation for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The moon does not reflect heat or sunlight but has light of its own. You need to research rather than reject the truth before you've looked into it. The luminosity of the moon as it is, not as we have been told by atheist scientists has everything to do with heliocentrism but you'd have to look into the subject before rejecting it in order to know.
- - -
Geocentrism is not, by definition, a flat, stationary earth. The geocentric model can use the round earth.
Oh, but it is historically always been flat...to the chagrin of the modern geocentrists who are getting sideswiped with reality as we speak. All Christendom knew was geocentric flat cosmology. The only reason people think earth is a ball is because an apostate devil worshiping lineup of atheist scientists like Copernicus, Keplar, Newton and Einstein were exclusively aloud to speak. Experiments contrary to heliocentrism prove so much, but have been systematically brushed aside.
The moon does not give off its own light. It is a rock, unlike the sun, which is gas. The unlit shadows cast by rocks and other outcroppings of the uneven surface of the moon can be seen when studied with a high powered telescope. If the moon gave off its own light, there should be no shadows, no dark areas. It is clear the shadows are the result of another light source shining on the moon. It is also clear that the Moon should have no phases, such as the half moon, quarter moon and so on, if the moon gave off its own light. Yet, this is what we see. The moon is often cast in total darkness, which would be impossible if the moon were self-illuminated.
Knowing the truth should be important enough to you to be open to learning. The sun is not a ball of gas, but electric. The entire universe is electric. Think about lightening and the Tesla experiments which prove this correct. What you're saying about the moon is easily proven otherwise, even by your self. I told you that you can do experiments for observing the difference in the two lights. First, you ought to read scripture however because it says God created two great lights: Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.
I have studied the moon since before I could read. I know the moon fairly well.
I have too, and I believed as you did because that's what I was taught. The question you must answer for yourself is: Are they lying? Is it possible that since they lie about global warming, moving earth, evolution, the moon landing, they might actually tell the truth about creation?
As for flat earth, this concept is full of discrepancies, such as the rising and setting of the sun and the moon, the speed of the heavenly bodies, the distortions of continents on a flat earth map, the exaggeration of oceans, and more.
That's only because no one explained it to you. It works even better than the ridiculous way modern science describes the ball. Do you really think its possible that earth is spinning 1050 mph, 67,000 mph around the sun, and barrels a whopping 550,000 mph through the galaxy? If they lied about all that commotion, what makes you think they told you the truth about it being a ball?
If the earth were flat, the sun and moon would rise and set differently from what we can observe. The sun and moon would appear smaller at rise and at set, and each would appear and measure as being larger when each is at its zenith (just overhead of the viewer). This is much like when a car passes an observer on a flat road; the car is larger when the car is closest to the viewer, and smaller when the car is in either distance. However, this never happens with the moon or the sun. The sun and the moon remain the same, measurable size from rise all the way to set. This suggests that the sun and moon go around a round earth, rather than going in circles over a flat earth.
Its funny to me that you skeptics critique what is obviously true, but never bat an eye at the garbage you've been spoon fed your whole life. Not being rude, just stunned that you are so quick to scoff at something you know so little about. Have you ever really considered stuff like: How does the surface of water curve around a ball earth? How does water cling to the outside of a ball? How does water surface curve on the earth ball but never anywhere else? How is it that no matter how high one ascends, the horizon always rises to the eye of the viewer? The horizon must drop as one ascends if earth were a ball. I really don't get why you guys never question what should be questioned.
The geocentric model can support the round model of the earth. The Church has not declared either the flat earth or the round earth models to be infallible dogma. Given this, it is unwise to allude to geocentric, round-earth proponents to be buying into the lies of "atheism, evolution and the worship of Satan."
Ok, lets pretend that's true. It can also support the flat model, too. Why is that so anathema to you? Given a little time and a critical but open mind, I can prove heliocentrism is the science of atheism.
This bickering is pointless. No one will go to hell because they follow a geocentric, spherical earth. It is not a sin. It is not against Scripture.
Oh, but it is against scripture. Scripture describes a dome over the earth with water above it in Genesis. But you'd rather believe in space so scripture must not be accurate, right? Scripture describes 4 corners of the earth. But you'd rather believe it wasn't describing earth literally? Scripture talks about the face of the earth. You can't have a spherical face. Scripture is not contradictory. There is so much more to know, Catholic stuff you should be instantly fascinated in hearing about rather than refer to the discussion as bickering. It kind of reminds me of the people complaining that Jesus was a trouble maker.
It is not against the teaching of the Church.
Once more, I have not espoused the heliocentric model or a spinning earth model. Please do not accuse me of having done so.
One can support the geocentric model with a round earth. One can say that the gravity created by the solid mass of the earth allows the water to cling to the surface of this earth. The dome that is the sky surrounds the whole of the earth.
As for the face of the earth, every human head has a face, yet the head is more or less spherical in shape. The face of the earth is the surface of the earth, which does not need to be flat to fit the scriptures.
I have read from some flat earth proponents that gravity is a myth, yet many of these proponents will not believe a ball earth because gravity would not allow for water to cling to the surface of the ball earth. This type of inconsistency should be understood.
When I speak of the moon, I have seen no evidence of any self-illumination of the moon. What I can observe is the light from the moon being reflected from another light source. The evidence on the surface of the moon, visible even to the naked eye, though even more visible through the use of telescopes, reveals no evidence of self-illumination. Rather, these observations can reveal that the moon is being illuminated by another light source, namely, the sun.
I hope you can understand that I did not espouse a heliocentric or spinning earth model. I hope you can understand that the Church has not declared either the flat earth or round earth as infallible doctrine, and that either one can work within a geocentric model. You may not agree with a round earth model, and I may not agree with a flat earth model. My observances of the earth and my studies (based on observances and other sources), do not agree with your observances of the earth or your studies (based on your observations and other sources).
Yes, that was a mouthful, but I want to make it clear that neither model will condemn our souls to hell. I hope we can agree on at least this point.
-
Amen.
Thank you for that.
Showing again how important the Truth in the Bible is, as it relates to the nature of the earth.
Our world is a circle, not a ball, and it does not move.
All i did was point out that in the Clementine Vulgate the word is circle. That does not prove anything since the Bible is not a scientific proof text. Which you seem to want to make it, it seems that you think that the Bible is the very Word of God, the only book I am aware of that claims to be the Very Words of God is the Koran, Catholics believe that the Holy Ghost inspired the authors of the text, so the text is true and confirmed by the Catholic Church. Try not to come off as a Protestant or an infidel. Good luck trying to prove the earth is flat and that compasses don't work. Pretty sure that I have navigated through a desert with one. I even went South.
-
P.S. pretty sure that the Bible is about the ways God interacted with men so as to lead them to heaven. didnt know it was a science book
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/79/ac/24/79ac24088c8971dda3a118d9f068de81.jpg)
-
Neither side of this discussion can be declared as infallible, and the Church has not officially taught one way or the other. This much we do know.
I would not go this far, as there are several decrees provided by cassini that reference geocentrism, which is locked into this subject as well. I choose to stay on the side of the Bible in the matter.
-
All i did was point out that in the Clementine Vulgate the word is circle. That does not prove anything since the Bible is not a scientific proof text. Which you seem to want to make it, it seems that you think that the Bible is the very Word of God, the only book I am aware of that claims to be the Very Words of God is the Koran, Catholics believe that the Holy Ghost inspired the authors of the text, so the text is true and confirmed by the Catholic Church. Try not to come off as a Protestant or an infidel. Good luck trying to prove the earth is flat and that compasses don't work. Pretty sure that I have navigated through a desert with one. I even went South.
Your dismissive attitude toward the Bible's language is bizarre to me, as a Catholic.
What does the Last Gospel say at Mass?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.
The same was in the beginning with God.
Hoc erat in principio apud Deum." John 1:1-2/DRV
It says God is the Word.
The Word is God.
So, the Words He chose in the book matter.
As Salza said in the video, the Holy Ghost dictated the Bible to the writers.
He "inspired" them to write very specific words.
The Bible is also a "science book" (if you want to call it that) because it teaches us many things about the nature of His creation.
-
Neither side of this discussion can be declared as infallible, and the Church has not officially taught one way or the other. This much we do know.
I would not go this far, as there are several decrees provided by cassini that reference geocentrism, which is locked into this subject as well. I choose to stay on the side of the Bible in the matter.
I also will side with the Scriptural view of the earth, which does not condemn either a flat or a spherical view of the earth.
-
I also will side with the Scriptural view of the earth, which does not condemn either a flat or a spherical view of the earth.
"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. " Apoc. 3:16/DRV
Sed quia tepidus es, et nec frigidus, nec calidus, incipiam te evomere ex ore meo:
-
I also will side with the Scriptural view of the earth, which does not condemn either a flat or a spherical view of the earth.
"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. " Apoc. 3:16/DRV
Sed quia tepidus es, et nec frigidus, nec calidus, incipiam te evomere ex ore meo:
To support a geocentric, spherical earth does not make one lukewarm. It is unjust to make this claim, or to use this verse in this manner, to use Our Lord's words to condemn another soul.
-
I also will side with the Scriptural view of the earth, which does not condemn either a flat or a spherical view of the earth.
"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. " Apoc. 3:16/DRV
Sed quia tepidus es, et nec frigidus, nec calidus, incipiam te evomere ex ore meo:
To support a geocentric, spherical earth does not make one lukewarm. It is unjust to make this claim, or to use this verse in this manner, to use Our Lord's words to condemn another soul.
Scripture actually describes a flat earth with a dome with waters above, nothing like the modern geocentric view that promotes space rather than ether and a dome. The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
How does modern hanging ball theory jive with any of these? Especially the fourth one where a foundation is cited?
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
The Hebrews considered the celestial bodies relatively small. The Genesis creation story indicates the size and importance of the earth relative to the celestial bodies in two ways, first by their order of creation, and second by their positional relationships. They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven. Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still “in Gibeon” and the moon “in the Vale of Aijalon.”
Stars can fall from the skies according to Daniel 8:10 and Matthew 24:29. The same idea is found in the following extracts from Revelation 6:13-16:
...the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up...they called out to the mountains and the crags, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne...”
This is consistent with the Hebrew cosmology previously described, but it is ludicrous in the light of modern astronomy. If one star let alone all the stars in the sky “fell” on the earth, no one would be hollering from any mountain or crag. The writer considered the stars small objects, all of which could fall to the earth without eradicating human life. He also viewed the sky as a physical object. The stars are inside the sky, and they fall before the sky opens. When it is whisked away, it reveals the One throned above (see Isaiah 40:22).
Scripture definitely has an opinion on the shape of the earth, with zero references to it being a ball. But plenty of references of it being flat with a domed sky.
-
Geocentrism is by definition, flat stationary earth. Heliocentrism is round moving earth and has been condemned. Heliocentrism is the science of the Pythagorean doctrine and is 100% an atheist lie and the foundation for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The moon does not reflect heat or sunlight but has light of its own. You need to research rather than reject the truth before you've looked into it. The luminosity of the moon as it is, not as we have been told by atheist scientists has everything to do with heliocentrism but you'd have to look into the subject before rejecting it in order to know.
- - -
Geocentrism is not, by definition, a flat, stationary earth. The geocentric model can use the round earth.
Oh, but it is historically always been flat...to the chagrin of the modern geocentrists who are getting sideswiped with reality as we speak. All Christendom knew was geocentric flat cosmology. The only reason people think earth is a ball is because an apostate devil worshiping lineup of atheist scientists like Copernicus, Keplar, Newton and Einstein were exclusively aloud to speak. Experiments contrary to heliocentrism prove so much, but have been systematically brushed aside.
The moon does not give off its own light. It is a rock, unlike the sun, which is gas. The unlit shadows cast by rocks and other outcroppings of the uneven surface of the moon can be seen when studied with a high powered telescope. If the moon gave off its own light, there should be no shadows, no dark areas. It is clear the shadows are the result of another light source shining on the moon. It is also clear that the Moon should have no phases, such as the half moon, quarter moon and so on, if the moon gave off its own light. Yet, this is what we see. The moon is often cast in total darkness, which would be impossible if the moon were self-illuminated.
Knowing the truth should be important enough to you to be open to learning. The sun is not a ball of gas, but electric. The entire universe is electric. Think about lightening and the Tesla experiments which prove this correct. What you're saying about the moon is easily proven otherwise, even by your self. I told you that you can do experiments for observing the difference in the two lights. First, you ought to read scripture however because it says God created two great lights: Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.
I have studied the moon since before I could read. I know the moon fairly well.
I have too, and I believed as you did because that's what I was taught. The question you must answer for yourself is: Are they lying? Is it possible that since they lie about global warming, moving earth, evolution, the moon landing, they might actually tell the truth about creation?
As for flat earth, this concept is full of discrepancies, such as the rising and setting of the sun and the moon, the speed of the heavenly bodies, the distortions of continents on a flat earth map, the exaggeration of oceans, and more.
That's only because no one explained it to you. It works even better than the ridiculous way modern science describes the ball. Do you really think its possible that earth is spinning 1050 mph, 67,000 mph around the sun, and barrels a whopping 550,000 mph through the galaxy? If they lied about all that commotion, what makes you think they told you the truth about it being a ball?
If the earth were flat, the sun and moon would rise and set differently from what we can observe. The sun and moon would appear smaller at rise and at set, and each would appear and measure as being larger when each is at its zenith (just overhead of the viewer). This is much like when a car passes an observer on a flat road; the car is larger when the car is closest to the viewer, and smaller when the car is in either distance. However, this never happens with the moon or the sun. The sun and the moon remain the same, measurable size from rise all the way to set. This suggests that the sun and moon go around a round earth, rather than going in circles over a flat earth.
Its funny to me that you skeptics critique what is obviously true, but never bat an eye at the garbage you've been spoon fed your whole life. Not being rude, just stunned that you are so quick to scoff at something you know so little about. Have you ever really considered stuff like: How does the surface of water curve around a ball earth? How does water cling to the outside of a ball? How does water surface curve on the earth ball but never anywhere else? How is it that no matter how high one ascends, the horizon always rises to the eye of the viewer? The horizon must drop as one ascends if earth were a ball. I really don't get why you guys never question what should be questioned.
The geocentric model can support the round model of the earth. The Church has not declared either the flat earth or the round earth models to be infallible dogma. Given this, it is unwise to allude to geocentric, round-earth proponents to be buying into the lies of "atheism, evolution and the worship of Satan."
Ok, lets pretend that's true. It can also support the flat model, too. Why is that so anathema to you? Given a little time and a critical but open mind, I can prove heliocentrism is the science of atheism.
This bickering is pointless. No one will go to hell because they follow a geocentric, spherical earth. It is not a sin. It is not against Scripture.
Oh, but it is against scripture. Scripture describes a dome over the earth with water above it in Genesis. But you'd rather believe in space so scripture must not be accurate, right? Scripture describes 4 corners of the earth. But you'd rather believe it wasn't describing earth literally? Scripture talks about the face of the earth. You can't have a spherical face. Scripture is not contradictory. There is so much more to know, Catholic stuff you should be instantly fascinated in hearing about rather than refer to the discussion as bickering. It kind of reminds me of the people complaining that Jesus was a trouble maker.
It is not against the teaching of the Church.
Once more, I have not espoused the heliocentric model or a spinning earth model. Please do not accuse me of having done so.
One can support the geocentric model with a round earth. One can say that the gravity created by the solid mass of the earth allows the water to cling to the surface of this earth. The dome that is the sky surrounds the whole of the earth.
As for the face of the earth, every human head has a face, yet the head is more or less spherical in shape. The face of the earth is the surface of the earth, which does not need to be flat to fit the scriptures.
I have read from some flat earth proponents that gravity is a myth, yet many of these proponents will not believe a ball earth because gravity would not allow for water to cling to the surface of the ball earth. This type of inconsistency should be understood.
When I speak of the moon, I have seen no evidence of any self-illumination of the moon. What I can observe is the light from the moon being reflected from another light source. The evidence on the surface of the moon, visible even to the naked eye, though even more visible through the use of telescopes, reveals no evidence of self-illumination. Rather, these observations can reveal that the moon is being illuminated by another light source, namely, the sun.
I hope you can understand that I did not espouse a heliocentric or spinning earth model. I hope you can understand that the Church has not declared either the flat earth or round earth as infallible doctrine, and that either one can work within a geocentric model. You may not agree with a round earth model, and I may not agree with a flat earth model. My observances of the earth and my studies (based on observances and other sources), do not agree with your observances of the earth or your studies (based on your observations and other sources).
Yes, that was a mouthful, but I want to make it clear that neither model will condemn our souls to hell. I hope we can agree on at least this point.
The heliocentric model you say you do not espouse is necessarily a round earth model, that is true. But the geocentric model with a round earth is a very new concept, never before believed by Catholics or any ancient civilization. It is a new idea largely fueled by the notion that we have seen the earth from space. Since we all know that didn't happen, there are no other proofs that earth curves in a manner consistent with a ball. Even though you may prefer the ball, check this fact. There literally is no curve.
-
But the geocentric model with a round earth is a very new concept, never before believed by Catholics or any ancient civilization.
Um, this is not true. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed in a round geocentric earth and so did Dante and they lived many centuries ago, and so did many saints and Church Fathers. The belief in a geocentric spherical earth goes back thousands of years. I mean the ancient Greeks believed in a round geocentric earth and they were an ancient civilization. Didn't the monk Cosmas who believed in a flat earth complain about this belief in a round geocentric earth so many centuries ago?
-
I also will side with the Scriptural view of the earth, which does not condemn either a flat or a spherical view of the earth.
"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. " Apoc. 3:16/DRV
Sed quia tepidus es, et nec frigidus, nec calidus, incipiam te evomere ex ore meo:
To support a geocentric, spherical earth does not make one lukewarm. It is unjust to make this claim, or to use this verse in this manner, to use Our Lord's words to condemn another soul.
Scripture actually describes a flat earth with a dome with waters above, nothing like the modern geocentric view that promotes space rather than ether and a dome. The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
How does modern hanging ball theory jive with any of these? Especially the fourth one where a foundation is cited?
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
The Hebrews considered the celestial bodies relatively small. The Genesis creation story indicates the size and importance of the earth relative to the celestial bodies in two ways, first by their order of creation, and second by their positional relationships. They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven. Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still “in Gibeon” and the moon “in the Vale of Aijalon.”
Stars can fall from the skies according to Daniel 8:10 and Matthew 24:29. The same idea is found in the following extracts from Revelation 6:13-16:
...the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up...they called out to the mountains and the crags, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne...”
This is consistent with the Hebrew cosmology previously described, but it is ludicrous in the light of modern astronomy. If one star let alone all the stars in the sky “fell” on the earth, no one would be hollering from any mountain or crag. The writer considered the stars small objects, all of which could fall to the earth without eradicating human life. He also viewed the sky as a physical object. The stars are inside the sky, and they fall before the sky opens. When it is whisked away, it reveals the One throned above (see Isaiah 40:22).
Scripture definitely has an opinion on the shape of the earth, with zero references to it being a ball. But plenty of references of it being flat with a domed sky.
A foundation need not necessarily be flat to be a foundation. The core of the earth can be solid and stable. A spherical earth can have a dome over it, as in the atmosphere.
A spherical earth can work within a geocentric model. It is not a heresy to say it can work.
-
But the geocentric model with a round earth is a very new concept, never before believed by Catholics or any ancient civilization.
Um, this is not true. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed in a round geocentric earth and so did Dante and they lived many centuries ago, and so did many saints and Church Fathers. The belief in a geocentric spherical earth goes back thousands of years. I mean the ancient Greeks believed in a round geocentric earth and they were an ancient civilization. Didn't the monk Cosmas who believed in a flat earth complain about this belief in a round geocentric earth so many centuries ago?
No, the argument throughout history has always been between flat geocentric and what Pope Alexander VII called the "damn Pythagorean doctrine" which is heliocentrism. If you can show me proof that the discussions or writings of these men necessarily show that round earth geocentrism existed, I'll be impressed. I'm not saying it didn't exist, just that the arguments back then were paradigms that were pretty well set.
-
I also will side with the Scriptural view of the earth, which does not condemn either a flat or a spherical view of the earth.
"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. " Apoc. 3:16/DRV
Sed quia tepidus es, et nec frigidus, nec calidus, incipiam te evomere ex ore meo:
To support a geocentric, spherical earth does not make one lukewarm. It is unjust to make this claim, or to use this verse in this manner, to use Our Lord's words to condemn another soul.
Scripture actually describes a flat earth with a dome with waters above, nothing like the modern geocentric view that promotes space rather than ether and a dome. The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
How does modern hanging ball theory jive with any of these? Especially the fourth one where a foundation is cited?
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
The Hebrews considered the celestial bodies relatively small. The Genesis creation story indicates the size and importance of the earth relative to the celestial bodies in two ways, first by their order of creation, and second by their positional relationships. They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven. Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still “in Gibeon” and the moon “in the Vale of Aijalon.”
Stars can fall from the skies according to Daniel 8:10 and Matthew 24:29. The same idea is found in the following extracts from Revelation 6:13-16:
...the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up...they called out to the mountains and the crags, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne...”
This is consistent with the Hebrew cosmology previously described, but it is ludicrous in the light of modern astronomy. If one star let alone all the stars in the sky “fell” on the earth, no one would be hollering from any mountain or crag. The writer considered the stars small objects, all of which could fall to the earth without eradicating human life. He also viewed the sky as a physical object. The stars are inside the sky, and they fall before the sky opens. When it is whisked away, it reveals the One throned above (see Isaiah 40:22).
Scripture definitely has an opinion on the shape of the earth, with zero references to it being a ball. But plenty of references of it being flat with a domed sky.
A foundation need not necessarily be flat to be a foundation. The core of the earth can be solid and stable. A spherical earth can have a dome over it, as in the atmosphere.
A spherical earth can work within a geocentric model. It is not a heresy to say it can work.
What's so wrong with this notion of yours is that you refuse to check on it. You've made up your mind. Period. Door closed. Yet I've made a very bold claims that you cannot debunk. There is no curve. The horizon is flat no matter high high you go. Water doesn't cling to the outside of a ball. Scripture favors flat earth. Why would you believe the impossible for which there is no explanation, and even remotely against scripture or reason? Worse than these, why won't you go investigate for yourself, before drawing a conclusion? Not like a fake Protestant might consider the Catholic Faith with no intention of learning, but get wet, swim, and test the spirit.
-
Scripture definitely has an opinion on the shape of the earth, with zero references to it being a ball. But plenty of references of it being flat with a domed sky.
^^THIS^^
-
I also will side with the Scriptural view of the earth, which does not condemn either a flat or a spherical view of the earth.
"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. " Apoc. 3:16/DRV
Sed quia tepidus es, et nec frigidus, nec calidus, incipiam te evomere ex ore meo:
To support a geocentric, spherical earth does not make one lukewarm. It is unjust to make this claim, or to use this verse in this manner, to use Our Lord's words to condemn another soul.
Scripture actually describes a flat earth with a dome with waters above, nothing like the modern geocentric view that promotes space rather than ether and a dome. The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
How does modern hanging ball theory jive with any of these? Especially the fourth one where a foundation is cited?
In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
The Hebrews considered the celestial bodies relatively small. The Genesis creation story indicates the size and importance of the earth relative to the celestial bodies in two ways, first by their order of creation, and second by their positional relationships. They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven. Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still “in Gibeon” and the moon “in the Vale of Aijalon.”
Stars can fall from the skies according to Daniel 8:10 and Matthew 24:29. The same idea is found in the following extracts from Revelation 6:13-16:
...the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up...they called out to the mountains and the crags, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne...”
This is consistent with the Hebrew cosmology previously described, but it is ludicrous in the light of modern astronomy. If one star let alone all the stars in the sky “fell” on the earth, no one would be hollering from any mountain or crag. The writer considered the stars small objects, all of which could fall to the earth without eradicating human life. He also viewed the sky as a physical object. The stars are inside the sky, and they fall before the sky opens. When it is whisked away, it reveals the One throned above (see Isaiah 40:22).
Scripture definitely has an opinion on the shape of the earth, with zero references to it being a ball. But plenty of references of it being flat with a domed sky.
A foundation need not necessarily be flat to be a foundation. The core of the earth can be solid and stable. A spherical earth can have a dome over it, as in the atmosphere.
A spherical earth can work within a geocentric model. It is not a heresy to say it can work.
What's so wrong with this notion of yours is that you refuse to check on it. You've made up your mind. Period. Door closed. Yet I've made a very bold claims that you cannot debunk. There is no curve. The horizon is flat no matter high high you go. Water doesn't cling to the outside of a ball. Scripture favors flat earth. Why would you believe the impossible for which there is no explanation, and even remotely against scripture or reason? Worse than these, why won't you go investigate for yourself, before drawing a conclusion? Not like a fake Protestant might consider the Catholic Faith with no intention of learning, but get wet, swim, and test the spirit.
The issue is the condemnation as heretics and as lukewarm those who support a spherical, geocentric earth, when the Church herself has never done so. I do not condemn those who espouse a flat earth, and neither should those who propose a sphere earth be condemned.
I have done research, and continue to do research, through studies and observations of the earth, moon and stars. I have seen no reason to exclude the possibility of a spherical earth from the geocentric model.
-
A spherical earth can work within a geocentric model. It is not a heresy to say it can work.
No, it cannot, according to the laws of physics. It does not possess the mass to generate enough "gravity" to hold the sun or anything else.
-
I do not condemn those who espouse a flat earth, and neither should those who propose a sphere earth be condemned.
I don't see how your proposal of a spherical earth is NOT in contradiction with the Bible, which says flat circle in many places. So, I personally see it as a rejection of the Bible in this matter.
Whether or not that is worthy of condemnation is up to God.
-
I do not condemn those who espouse a flat earth, and neither should those who propose a sphere earth be condemned.
I don't see how your proposal of a spherical earth is NOT in contradiction with the Bible, which says flat circle in many places. So, I personally see it as a rejection of the Bible in this matter.
Whether or not that is worthy of condemnation is up to God.
Your inability or unwillingness to understand how the spherical earth can fit well with geocentrism does not negate the possibility of a spherical, geocentric model, nor does it negate the evidence offered to suggest as such.
I fail to see a verse in Scripture that says the earth is a "flat circle".
-
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9648)
The above image is indeed fascinating. Is it supposed to represent the flat earth claimed on this thread. Before I go on to test it I wish we could see a side-way view of this flat earth.
Anyway, in trying to come to terms with such a beautiful image something occurred to me. The bottom edge is supposedly the south pole ice. It would be easy to test the flat-earth theory by boat in the following way.
First mark the ice with a red spray from a boat, just like the boat up against the wall if ice that has been posted elsewhere. Now journey along the wall until you come back to the red mark on the ice. In the above image it would be the longest circle journey on earth. Now the time it takes at a certain speed, will determine if the above image is also a reality. If the time it takes is similar to the time it takes to circle the north pole, then the earth is a globe. If it takes 100/1000? times longer we have a flat earth.
Indeed I believe such journeys have been done and I do not recall anybody circling the south pole saying it takes so long.
Or am I missing something?
-
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9648)
The above image is indeed fascinating. Is it supposed to represent the flat earth claimed on this thread. Before I go on to test it I wish we could see a side-way view of this flat earth.
Anyway, in trying to come to terms with such a beautiful image something occurred to me. The bottom edge is supposedly the south pole ice. It would be easy to test the flat-earth theory by boat in the following way.
First mark the ice with a red spray from a boat, just like the boat up against the wall if ice that has been posted elsewhere. Now journey along the wall until you come back to the red mark on the ice. In the above image it would be the longest circle journey on earth. Now the time it takes at a certain speed, will determine if the above image is also a reality. If the time it takes is similar to the time it takes to circle the north pole, then the earth is a globe. If it takes 100/1000? times longer we have a flat earth.
Indeed I believe such journeys have been done and I do not recall anybody circling the south pole saying it takes so long.
Or am I missing something?
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
“Yes, but we can circuмnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
“If we now consider the fact that when we travel by land or sea, and from any part of the known world, in a direction towards the North polar star, we shall arrive at one and the same point, we are forced to the conclusion that what has hitherto been called the North Polar region, is really the center of the Earth. That from this northern center the land diverges and stretches out, of necessity, towards a circuмference, which must now be called the Southern region: which is a vast circle, and not a pole or center … In this and other ways all the great navigators have been frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the Antarctic circle. But if the southern region is a pole or center, like the north, there would be little difficulty in circuмnavigating it, for the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one center, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circuмnavigators can be easily understood.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (21-23)
The “Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” states that the distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 nautical or 1633 statute miles. Allowing a more than sufficient 83 miles as the distance for rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay to Nelson leaves 1550 statute miles as the straight-line distance from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety measures 25,182 miles. This is larger than the Earth is said to be at the equator, and 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions! One 360th part of 25,182 gives 70 miles as the distance between each degree of longitude at Sydney’s 34 degree Southern latitude. On a globe 25,000 miles in equatorial circuмference, however, degrees of longitude at 34 degrees latitude would be only 58 miles, a full 12 miles per degree less than reality. This perfectly explains why Ross and other navigators in the deep South experienced 12+ mile daily discrepancies between their reckoning and reality, the farther South traveled the farther the divide.
-
I do not condemn those who espouse a flat earth, and neither should those who propose a sphere earth be condemned.
I don't see how your proposal of a spherical earth is NOT in contradiction with the Bible, which says flat circle in many places. So, I personally see it as a rejection of the Bible in this matter.
Whether or not that is worthy of condemnation is up to God.
Your inability or unwillingness to understand how the spherical earth can fit well with geocentrism does not negate the possibility of a spherical, geocentric model, nor does it negate the evidence offered to suggest as such.
I fail to see a verse in Scripture that says the earth is a "flat circle".
I fail to see why you won't even consider earth is flat since I've given plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the globular theory.
-
Y'all sound like a bunch of backwoods uneducated protestants. Catholics have historically been more sophisticated than this bottom-feeding protestant private interpretation and quoting laymen as authority. Sure as hell not pointing at myself. I have simply lived among a bunch of protestants that y'all sound just like and recognize your banter with an annoying familiarity.
Gee, that's funny.
You just called me "back-woods" yet YOU used the phrase "y'all" TWICE in one paragraph.
:fryingpan:
Southern is not synonymous with backwoods.
-
Y'all sound like a bunch of backwoods uneducated protestants. Catholics have historically been more sophisticated than this bottom-feeding protestant private interpretation and quoting laymen as authority. Sure as hell not pointing at myself. I have simply lived among a bunch of protestants that y'all sound just like and recognize your banter with an annoying familiarity.
Gee, that's funny.
You just called me "back-woods" yet YOU used the phrase "y'all" TWICE in one paragraph.
:fryingpan:
Southern is not synonymous with backwoods.
OHCA is correct. Also, there is nothing wrong with saying y'all, as it is a regional colloquialism, and does not reflect on the intellect of the individual.
-
We've given them plenty to come to the truth but their undying faith in science falsely so-called and belief in Baal earth supersedes their reasoning. They will finally come around in a year or two because they have to, and swear they knew for a long time. No surprise there. To date, not one has asked the obvious, "Hmm, no curvature? Are you sure? Let me check that." Rather, the hands-up stop sign and continuous blockage of all proofs is purposeful in its spirit of falsity.
The Church teaches that humility is measured by ones ability to learn.
Not much of that here...
Carry on, mw2016, unless I'm specifically summoned with a question, I'll be watching from the seats.
-
I do not condemn those who espouse a flat earth, and neither should those who propose a sphere earth be condemned.
I don't see how your proposal of a spherical earth is NOT in contradiction with the Bible, which says flat circle in many places. So, I personally see it as a rejection of the Bible in this matter.
Whether or not that is worthy of condemnation is up to God.
Your inability or unwillingness to understand how the spherical earth can fit well with geocentrism does not negate the possibility of a spherical, geocentric model, nor does it negate the evidence offered to suggest as such.
I fail to see a verse in Scripture that says the earth is a "flat circle".
In trying to find that, I found this. But... But... The word "globe" is evil.
Isaias 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
-
We've given them plenty to come to the truth but their undying faith in science falsely so-called and belief in Baal earth supersedes their reasoning. They will finally come around in a year or two because they have to, and swear they knew for a long time. No surprise there. To date, not one has asked the obvious, "Hmm, no curvature? Are you sure? Let me check that." Rather, the hands-up stop sign and continuous blockage of all proofs is purposeful in its spirit of falsity.
The Church teaches that humility is measured by ones ability to learn.
Not much of that here...
Carry on, mw2016, unless I'm specifically summoned with a question, I'll be watching from the seats.
The problem I have is that you don't seem to mind condemning those who espouse the notion of a geocentric, spherical earth as heretics, when the Church has not done so.
I have no undying faith in science, nor do I believe simply because I have been taught to do so. I question everything, and I do my own research and observations.
I flatly deny the notion of a self-luminous moon, based on study and observation of the Moon. That I will definitely deny.
I will not deny the slim possibility of a flat earth, but neither will I deny the possibility of a spherical earth. Both can be used in a geocentric model. I prefer the spherical model, based on observations and study, but I do admit a certain curiosity in regards to the flat earth, even if I am not convinced of its veracity.
-
The problem I have is that you don't seem to mind condemning those who espouse the notion of a geocentric, spherical earth as heretics, when the Church has not done so.
Yes--this is very problematic. At a minimum, it makes those doing so schismatic for falsely excluding from the Faith those they have, without authority, deemed heretics. I wonder whether they think deep enough to realize that that is the ultimate effect of their false assertions of heresy--they are saying those who don't believe as they do are not Catholics.
I flatly deny the notion of a self-luminous moon, based on study and observation of the Moon. That I will definitely deny.
So does their preacher, John Salza. Or at least he did in that earth-stopping 2010 YouTube video to which I was so eagerly directed.
-
if you check out this link http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
from no. 67 onwards, you have a plethora of examples of objects that should not be visible. There's no need to re-hash them all here.
...
Several of them have been rehashed here, and a cursory examination of the math involved shows them to be as expected on a round earth. You have to factor in the height of the viewer (most if not all of them discuss observations from high points) and the height of the object viewed (usually skyscrapers or bluffs/mountains). You will note that no case is it possible to see the base of the distant object. Why? Curvature.
I am going to just ignore the ones that are anecdotal accounts from hundreds of years ago, for obvious reasons.
-
First mark the ice with a red spray from a boat, just like the boat up against the wall if ice that has been posted elsewhere. Now journey along the wall until you come back to the red mark on the ice. In the above image it would be the longest circle journey on earth. Now the time it takes at a certain speed, will determine if the above image is also a reality. If the time it takes is similar to the time it takes to circle the north pole, then the earth is a globe. If it takes 100/1000? times longer we have a flat earth.
Indeed I believe such journeys have been done and I do not recall anybody circling the south pole saying it takes so long.
Or am I missing something?
I believe some FE'ers are trying to do this experiment.
-
Carry on, mw2016, unless I'm specifically summoned with a question, I'll be watching from the seats.
Happenby - come to my thread on the THIRD BODY filmed during the solar eclipse on Sep. 1!
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/PROOF-A-third-body-present-during-the-solar-eclipse-on-Sep-1
-
Carry on, mw2016, unless I'm specifically summoned with a question, I'll be watching from the seats.
Happenby - come to my thread on the THIRD BODY filmed during the solar eclipse on Sep. 1!
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/PROOF-A-third-body-present-during-the-solar-eclipse-on-Sep-1
What date? I'll be there...
-
if you check out this link http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
from no. 67 onwards, you have a plethora of examples of objects that should not be visible. There's no need to re-hash them all here.
...
Several of them have been rehashed here, and a cursory examination of the math involved shows them to be as expected on a round earth. You have to factor in the height of the viewer (most if not all of them discuss observations from high points) and the height of the object viewed (usually skyscrapers or bluffs/mountains). You will note that no case is it possible to see the base of the distant object. Why? Curvature.
I am going to just ignore the ones that are anecdotal accounts from hundreds of years ago, for obvious reasons.
The height of the viewer is taken into account in the serious experiments.
Even when this is taken into account it is physically impossible to see certain objects. The curvature of the earth is much more sharp than people realise. I, for one, am more than willing to admit when an experiment is faulty, and so should all honest flat earth researchers.
Here is a link to the earth curvature calculator. https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
One will see that it takes into account the height of the viewer.
Here is one excellent and thorough video which takes into account the height of the camera. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs
It is literally at the level of the sand.The islands should be over 600 feet below the sea.He goes into detail with all the factors. So much so, that the only response really that cynics can give is; "well its a fake video!".
Fine, I retort, say that, but how many of these 'fake experiments', by totally different people, across different parts of the world, do you have to see, before you realise that it is possibly you who are wrong.
I'm sorry, but it is not obvious to me why one would ignore account from a hundred years ago. Much of modern science basis itself on experiments that have taken place a long time ago. They have since been confirmed, but so have the flat earth curvature experiments.
May those who are intellectually honest, view these experiments and make up their own minds.
-
I do not condemn those who espouse a flat earth, and neither should those who propose a sphere earth be condemned.
I don't see how your proposal of a spherical earth is NOT in contradiction with the Bible, which says flat circle in many places. So, I personally see it as a rejection of the Bible in this matter.
Whether or not that is worthy of condemnation is up to God.
See Isaias 40:22. "Globe"
Also, where do you find "flat circle" in the Holy Bible?
-
I do not condemn those who espouse a flat earth, and neither should those who propose a sphere earth be condemned.
I don't see how your proposal of a spherical earth is NOT in contradiction with the Bible, which says flat circle in many places. So, I personally see it as a rejection of the Bible in this matter.
Whether or not that is worthy of condemnation is up to God.
See Isaias 40:22. "Globe"
Also, where do you find "flat circle" in the Holy Bible?
"quando certa lege et gyro vallabat abyssos;"
"He drew a circle on the face of the deep."
gyro = circle
vallabat = enclosed
like a ring, like a clock face
Not a ball.
Proverbs 8:27
-
I do not condemn those who espouse a flat earth, and neither should those who propose a sphere earth be condemned.
I don't see how your proposal of a spherical earth is NOT in contradiction with the Bible, which says flat circle in many places. So, I personally see it as a rejection of the Bible in this matter.
Whether or not that is worthy of condemnation is up to God.
See Isaias 40:22. "Globe"
Also, where do you find "flat circle" in the Holy Bible?
"quando certa lege et gyro vallabat abyssos;"
"He drew a circle on the face of the deep."
gyro = circle
vallabat = enclosed
like a ring, like a clock face
Not a ball.
Proverbs 8:27
I don't acknowledge post-Vatican II "bibles" anymore than the KJV rag.
-
The quotes are from the Latin Vulgate Bible at drbo.org.
You can read it yourself.
Our Lord would probably have used the Latin word "pilam" for the Isaiah 40:22 passage if He intended to say "He sits above the BALL of the earth."
The Bible uses the word "pilam" where ball is intended.
"quasi pilam mittet te in terram latam et spatiosam,"
"he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country:" Isaiah 18:22
-
Even if you look at the Hebrew translations, the Hebrew uses the word "chug" for "circle" and the word "dur" for "ball."
As we all know, there is a big difference between a circle and a ball, and the earth is NOT a ball.
-
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
“Yes, but we can circuмnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
“If we now consider the fact that when we travel by land or sea, and from any part of the known world, in a direction towards the North polar star, we shall arrive at one and the same point, we are forced to the conclusion that what has hitherto been called the North Polar region, is really the center of the Earth. That from this northern center the land diverges and stretches out, of necessity, towards a circuмference, which must now be called the Southern region: which is a vast circle, and not a pole or center … In this and other ways all the great navigators have been frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the Antarctic circle. But if the southern region is a pole or center, like the north, there would be little difficulty in circuмnavigating it, for the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one center, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circuмnavigators can be easily understood.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (21-23)
The “Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” states that the distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 nautical or 1633 statute miles. Allowing a more than sufficient 83 miles as the distance for rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay to Nelson leaves 1550 statute miles as the straight-line distance from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety measures 25,182 miles. This is larger than the Earth is said to be at the equator, and 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions! One 360th part of 25,182 gives 70 miles as the distance between each degree of longitude at Sydney’s 34 degree Southern latitude. On a globe 25,000 miles in equatorial circuмference, however, degrees of longitude at 34 degrees latitude would be only 58 miles, a full 12 miles per degree less than reality. This perfectly explains why Ross and other navigators in the deep South experienced 12+ mile daily discrepancies between their reckoning and reality, the farther South traveled the farther the divide.
No one has even attempted to refute this amongst the globers.
-
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
“Yes, but we can circuмnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
“If we now consider the fact that when we travel by land or sea, and from any part of the known world, in a direction towards the North polar star, we shall arrive at one and the same point, we are forced to the conclusion that what has hitherto been called the North Polar region, is really the center of the Earth. That from this northern center the land diverges and stretches out, of necessity, towards a circuмference, which must now be called the Southern region: which is a vast circle, and not a pole or center … In this and other ways all the great navigators have been frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the Antarctic circle. But if the southern region is a pole or center, like the north, there would be little difficulty in circuмnavigating it, for the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one center, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circuмnavigators can be easily understood.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (21-23)
The “Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” states that the distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 nautical or 1633 statute miles. Allowing a more than sufficient 83 miles as the distance for rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay to Nelson leaves 1550 statute miles as the straight-line distance from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety measures 25,182 miles. This is larger than the Earth is said to be at the equator, and 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions! One 360th part of 25,182 gives 70 miles as the distance between each degree of longitude at Sydney’s 34 degree Southern latitude. On a globe 25,000 miles in equatorial circuмference, however, degrees of longitude at 34 degrees latitude would be only 58 miles, a full 12 miles per degree less than reality. This perfectly explains why Ross and other navigators in the deep South experienced 12+ mile daily discrepancies between their reckoning and reality, the farther South traveled the farther the divide.
No one has even attempted to refute this amongst the globers.
Do you dismiss the Douay-Rheims as a "glober?"
-
Do you dismiss the Douay-Rheims as a "glober?"
What are you talking about? The quotes I've given are from drbo.org.
-
mw2016:Your dismissive attitude toward the Bible's language is bizarre to me, as a Catholic.
What does the Last Gospel say at Mass?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.
The same was in the beginning with God.
Hoc erat in principio apud Deum." John 1:1-2/DRV
It says God is the Word.
The Word is God.
So, the Words He chose in the book matter.
As Salza said in the video, the Holy Ghost dictated the Bible to the writers.
He "inspired" them to write very specific words.
The Bible is also a "science book" (if you want to call it that) because it teaches us many things about the nature of His creation.
:tinfoil:
Many Protestants are fundamentalists, meaning in practice that they interpret each word or phrase in the Bible at face value, without reference to differences in culture from ancient to modern times, and without attention to the particular literary form of a passage.
Catholics are taught that the first step in interpretation of the Bible is the same as for other literature, to identify the literary form in the original context. In the newspaper that means: is it a report or an editorial, a straight commentary or a satire? For the Bible it might mean: is it a history or a parable, a Gospel or a psalm, is it spiritual or biological (which affects, for example, the interpretation of “born again”)? This applies also to phrases: are they literal or metaphorical (“She laughed her head off”)?
Catholics consider the whole Bible divinely inspired, but give a different weight to the Old Testament and the New in matters of doctrine and spiritual guidance. The Catholic principle here is that revelation is progressive up to Christ. In other words, as the people of God moved through history, God worked with us according to our understanding, preparing us gradually for the full revelation in Jesus Christ.
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. -2 Peter 1:20-21
It also says we need an authority to help us interpret the Bible correctly:
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. – Acts 8:30-31
The Bible also says that some parts are hard to understand, as Peter says when writing about Paul’s epistles:
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. – 2 Peter 3:15-16
-
Hey I Found mw2016's profile on line!
(https://headstickdeb.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/open-bible-02.jpg?w=640)
-
p.s. do you know what that Bible language is? enlighten me! was it modern hebrew which you seem fond of :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Do you dismiss the Douay-Rheims as a "glober?"
What are you talking about? The quotes I've given are from drbo.org.
At Isaias 40:22, Douay-Rheims uses the word "globe."
-
At Isaias 40:22, Douay-Rheims uses the word "globe."
And yet, Proverbs 8:27 does not.
Nor, does the Latin Vulgate of 384 use "globe" for either verse.
Please explain this discrepancy.
"..quando certa lege et gyro vallabat abyssos;" Proverbs 8:27
"Qui sedet super gyrum terrae," Isaias 40:22
Latin: gyrus, gyrum, gyro - round, circle, ring, curve, coil, course, circuit, to go about, around
Latin: globus, globi - ball, sphere, globe, dense mass
St. Jerome translated the Bible from the Hebrew into Latin from 382-384. Do you have a problem with his choice of the words "gyrum and gyro"? Or do you just have a problem with his Latin Vulgate translation in general?
Why didn't he use the word "globus, globi" if he thought the word was "ball, sphere"?
Do you have a problem with Hebrew?
"from 390 to 405, Jerome translated anew from the Hebrew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible."
-
At Isaias 40:22, Douay-Rheims uses the word "globe."
And yet, Proverbs 8:27 does not.
Nor, does the Latin Vulgate of 384 use "globe" for either verse.
Please explain this discrepancy.
"..quando certa lege et gyro vallabat abyssos;" Proverbs 8:27
"Qui sedet super gyrum terrae," Isaias 40:22
Latin: gyrus, gyrum, gyro - round, circle, ring, curve, coil, course, circuit, to go about, around
Latin: globus, globi - ball, sphere, globe, dense mass
St. Jerome translated the Bible from the Hebrew into Latin from 382-384. Do you have a problem with his choice of the words "gyrum and gyro"? Or do you just have a problem with his Latin Vulgate translation in general?
Why didn't he use the word "globus, globi" if he thought the word was "ball, sphere"?
Do you have a problem with Hebrew?
"from 390 to 405, Jerome translated anew from the Hebrew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible."
This does not negate the spherical model of the earth, as a sphere can be viewed as round and circle. The Scripture never calls the earth flat, and any such rendering of Scripture is interpretative only.
-
This does not negate the spherical model of the earth, as a sphere can be viewed as round and circle.
What an absurd statement!
A circle can NEVER be viewed as a BALL, as a circle is - BY DEFINITION - flat!
I cannot put a ball on my ring finger...my, what a beautifull engagement BALL you have!
I cannot play baseCIRCLE, or basketCIRCLE, as a circle cannot be dribbled nor thrown.
While a circle and a ball may share some similarities, they are undoubtedly NOT the same and can never be shown as such.
Hey, if you get knocked down you get right back in the "ball" again? No, you get back in the "ring" again.
Hey, kids! Wanna go ride on the merry-go-ball?! No, they ride on the merry-go-ROUND - it goes around in a CIRCLE.
-
A globe, viewed from the top down, would appear as a circle, and as round. The moon is a sphere, as is the sun. The stars are spherical as well as the other planets.
However, neither a globe nor a flat circle have corners, which causes an issue with Revelation 7:1 if read in a completely literal sense.
-
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=670&#p9)
Okay! Enough already to the couple of chatter boxes who think that just because some members have bowed out of this, gone over the top silly topic that they are sitting on the Mt of Truth... please return to the OP and please provide "Scientific Proof Earth is Not a Globe."
I've not seen an "Iota" of evidence to make me even bat an eye. Just to some of the responses to me, I have seen a lack of experience in regards to reality and no knowledge of basic physics. Please dig a little deeper into the proper use of your intelligence and sign-off from these silly animated videos which, IMO, are making total fools of you.
77 pages now without one word of "scientific proof the earth is not a globe."
This must be some kind of record.
A globe, viewed from the top down, would appear as a circle, and as round. The moon is a sphere, as is the sun. The stars are spherical as well as the other planets.
It was several hundred years ago when telescope viewings of Venus and Mars, showing for the first time that they exhibit the same "phases" that we see in our viewings of the moon, convinced thinking people all over the world that these bodies are spheroid and have circular (or quasi-circular) paths in the heavens.
However, neither a globe nor a flat circle have corners, which causes an issue with Revelation 7:1 if read in a completely literal sense.
Maybe the earth is a different kind of ball - one with corners!
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsloa.wildapricot.org%2FResources%2FPictures%2FFootball.jpg&sp=fc36632439d4f0d55a0cd21db3c01033)
-
At Isaias 40:22, Douay-Rheims uses the word "globe."
And yet, Proverbs 8:27 does not.
Nor, does the Latin Vulgate of 384 use "globe" for either verse.
Please explain this discrepancy.
You should be banished for your blatant disdain for the Douay-Rheims Bible.
The pride and ego you exude for your own musings is quite unbecoming a Catholic lady. Even as a man, I humbly acknowledge that there is some small possibility that I am wrong. Not only do you fail to demonstrate any hint whatsoever of humbleness in that regard, you insist that your translations and interpretations of the Bible are correct even when it is pointed out to you multiple times that the only versions using your lingo are the heretical and new church modern (probably also heretical) versions.
Again I will say that it is not nearly so much the point you seek to prove (how ever erroneous I think it is) that I take issue with. But rather it is your brashness and your playing fast and loose with Holy Scripture as well as implicitly, if not explicitly, boldly maintaining that the Douay-Rheims Bible is wrong in the inconvenient use of the word "globe."
-
Catholics have statues of Christ holding a globe and Our Lady also. Are these made up by man or did saints have these visions?
-
Catholics have statues of Christ holding a globe and Our Lady also. Are these made up by man or did saints have these visions?
Those statues are incorrect.
They ought to have a flat earth instead, looking like a divot from a Teeing green.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Flakeviewcc.com%2Fturfcare%2Fimgs%2Fdivot.jpg&sp=9422b8997df02ff24b6c9ab4ac76ee6a)
Oh, but you'd have to get rid of the BALL!! HAHAHAHA
-
Catholics have statues of Christ holding a globe and Our Lady also. Are these made up by man or did saints have these visions?
The globe represents all of creation. The dome of heaven at the top, terra firma in the middle and Sheol the bottom=a globe. Christ holds the globe showing He is not just Lord of a single "planet", but He stands outside of creation and holds the entire universe in His Hands.
-
Catholics have statues of Christ holding a globe and Our Lady also. Are these made up by man or did saints have these visions?
This has already been covered.
It is not a globe.
It is called a globus cruciger and it has always historically been a representation of the entire universe of His Creation, which looks exactly as it is depicted in the flat earth model - but NOT as depicted in the heliocentric, ball-earth model.
-
At Isaias 40:22, Douay-Rheims uses the word "globe."
And yet, Proverbs 8:27 does not.
Nor, does the Latin Vulgate of 384 use "globe" for either verse.
Please explain this discrepancy.
You should be banished for your blatant disdain for the Douay-Rheims Bible.
I have no disdain for the Douay-Rheims.
YOU have nothing BUT disdain for the dozens of Scripture passages that mention the flat earth model of Creation.
You sidestep the question:
Please explain this discrepancy.
WHY does the Bible use the SAME word (gyro, gyrum) twice but give it two different contradictory translations - once as circle, once as globe - when they are NOT the same thing?
I don't pretend to know the answer.
But, I do not display total cognitive dissonance like you do, holding two contradictory ideas at the same time:
You think that NASA is a liar, yet their images of earth are "real."
You think that there is curvature, yet you disregard a dozen proofs given to you by flat earth proponents on the thread that show NO curvature.
You then resort to ad hominem attacks and mocking.
This shows you are out of ammo and have no other arguments left.
-
At Isaias 40:22, Douay-Rheims uses the word "globe."
And yet, Proverbs 8:27 does not.
Nor, does the Latin Vulgate of 384 use "globe" for either verse.
Please explain this discrepancy.
You should be banished for your blatant disdain for the Douay-Rheims Bible.
I have no disdain for the Douay-Rheims.
YOU have nothing BUT disdain for the dozens of Scripture passages that mention the flat earth model of Creation.
Where does the Douay-Rheims say "flat earth?"
You sidestep the question:
Please explain this discrepancy.
WHY does the Bible use the SAME word (gyro, gyrum) twice but give it two different contradictory translations - once as circle, once as globe - when they are NOT the same thing?
I don't pretend to know the answer.
Until I am elected Pope, explaining Biblical "discrepancies" and "contradictions" is above my pay grade. I am thrilled to see that you, in true protestant form, feel qualified to resolve Scriptural "discrepancies" and "contradictions" via your own private interpretation. If allowing you to have the pride and apple that is private interpretation all to yourself means that I am "sidestep[ping] the question, then you've got me--I will continue to do so all day long without apology.
But, I do not display total cognitive dissonance like you do, holding two contradictory ideas at the same time:
You think that NASA is a liar, yet their images of earth are "real."
Nevermind that I hold my beliefs despite NASA rather than because of NASA, you have clearly caught me in a contradiction--no liar has ever uttered the truth about anything whatsoever. What could I possibly be thinking...
Just do me a favor and don't walk around without a helmet.
You think that there is curvature, yet you disregard a dozen proofs given to you by flat earth proponents on the thread that show NO curvature.
I'm sorry--I am utterly unimpressed by those "proofs."
You then resort to ad hominem attacks and mocking.
This shows you are out of ammo and have no other arguments left.
My entire point is is that your approach to this topic wreaks of protestantism. You pick and choose versions of the Bible to suit your agenda; you add words to the Bible; you privately resolve "discrepancies" and "contradictions" in Holy Scripture.
I am not trying to convince you that the earth is round or a globe. I do not care that you believe the earth is flat. My issue is how you reach your belief--it is via a protestant path, at least to the extent of the manner in which you shamelessly twist and turn Scripture to push your position.
Even more of a problem in view is that you are seeking to lure folks on a Catholic forum into engaging in this un-Catholic wholly heretical private interpretation of Scripture to see things your way. Again, I humbly admit that I may one day be made a fool for believing the earth is round. But I assure you, ma'am, that it won't be by means of an heretical method of argumentation.
Whether you think I'm a dunce or not regarding the flat-earth issue, I urge you to consider my fraternal correction of your misuse of the Holy Bible.
-
Even more of a problem in view is that you are seeking to lure folks on a Catholic forum into engaging in this un-Catholic wholly heretical private interpretation of Scripture to see things your way. Again, I humbly admit that I may one day be made a fool for believing the earth is round. But I assure you, ma'am, that it won't be by means of an heretical method of argumentation.
Whether you think I'm a dunce or not regarding the flat-earth issue, I urge you to consider my fraternal correction of your misuse of the Holy Bible.
Oh dear, well then it may surprise you to know that there are not a few Catholics who believe in the flat earth. And, obviously you may have noticed around a dozen or so on this thread, though you enjoy singling me out for your vitriol and ridicule.
Yes, I have no doubt that one day you will be made a fool for believing the earth is round.
-
Even more of a problem in view is that you are seeking to lure folks on a Catholic forum into engaging in this un-Catholic wholly heretical private interpretation of Scripture to see things your way. Again, I humbly admit that I may one day be made a fool for believing the earth is round. But I assure you, ma'am, that it won't be by means of an heretical method of argumentation.
Whether you think I'm a dunce or not regarding the flat-earth issue, I urge you to consider my fraternal correction of your misuse of the Holy Bible.
Oh dear, well then it may surprise you to know that there are not a few Catholics who believe in the flat earth. And, obviously you may have noticed around a dozen or so on this thread, though you enjoy singling me out for your vitriol and ridicule.
Are you really this dense?!?!?!?!
My issue is not that you think the earth is flat! The reason that I'm not going after others who hold that stupid idea is because they are not using heretical methods of twisting Scripture to argue that it is.
If you were using your silly pictures and "experiments" and other time-wasting efforts to prove the earth is flat, I would have sailed on by with no more than an "I think you're wrong," or more likely no comment at all. But when you add to Scripture, twist Scripture, and speak disdainfully of the Douay-Rheims (insisting there are "discrepancies" and "contradictions") because it doesn't say what you wish it would say, that's where I feel obliged to point out on this Catholic forum, the protestant nature of your methodology.
You should be banned because of the protestant nature of your methodology--not because of your idea that the earth is flat.
-
You should be banned because of the protestant nature of your methodology--not because of your idea that the earth is flat.
Maybe you should be banned for disblelieving the Bible itself, eh?
I believe what the Bible says on this topic, and apparently in your opinion, people who do are taking it too literally. Absurd.
FE'ers understand that the Bible merely affirms what is observable with one's own eyes. There is utterly nothing Protestant in my, or any FE'ers, methodology. Reading the Latin word "gyro" and reading what any Latin-English dictionary says "gyro" means is not 'protestant.' It's called reading.
You sound like Bill Clinton arguing over what the meaning of 'is' is.
-
At Isaias 40:22, Douay-Rheims uses the word "globe."
And yet, Proverbs 8:27 does not.
Nor, does the Latin Vulgate of 384 use "globe" for either verse.
Please explain this discrepancy.
"..quando certa lege et gyro vallabat abyssos;" Proverbs 8:27
"Qui sedet super gyrum terrae," Isaias 40:22
Latin: gyrus, gyrum, gyro - round, circle, ring, curve, coil, course, circuit, to go about, around
Latin: globus, globi - ball, sphere, globe, dense mass
St. Jerome translated the Bible from the Hebrew into Latin from 382-384. Do you have a problem with his choice of the words "gyrum and gyro"? Or do you just have a problem with his Latin Vulgate translation in general?
Why didn't he use the word "globus, globi" if he thought the word was "ball, sphere"?
Do you have a problem with Hebrew?
"from 390 to 405, Jerome translated anew from the Hebrew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible."
This does not negate the spherical model of the earth, as a sphere can be viewed as round and circle. The Scripture never calls the earth flat, and any such rendering of Scripture is interpretative only.
Certainly, it would be wise to accept that the Early Church Fathers NEVER accepted the heliocentric theory which is necessarily a moving ball earth, that scripture should be interpreted literally, that earth is proven in the Pontifical Decrees book as infallibly flat and geocentric, and that your view shows you favor the modern science theory simply because you favor it, not because it follows or makes sense. If you prove to the contrary, I'd love to see what you have.
-
You should be banned because of the protestant nature of your methodology--not because of your idea that the earth is flat.
[blah-blah-blah]
How does Proverbs 8:27 support your assertion that the earth is flat?
-
You should be banned because of the protestant nature of your methodology--not because of your idea that the earth is flat.
[blah-blah-blah]
How does Proverbs 8:27 support your assertion that the earth is flat?
Because a compass is not a ball. This is common sense.
-
This does not negate the spherical model of the earth, as a sphere can be viewed as round and circle. The Scripture never calls the earth flat, and any such rendering of Scripture is interpretative only.
Certainly, it would be wise to accept that the Early Church Fathers NEVER accepted the heliocentric theory which is necessarily a moving ball earth, that scripture should be interpreted literally, that earth is proven in the Pontifical Decrees book as infallibly flat and geocentric, and that your view shows you favor the modern science theory simply because you favor it, not because it follows or makes sense. If you prove to the contrary, I'd love to see what you have.
I would love to see it also.
:rahrah:
-
You should be banned because of the protestant nature of your methodology--not because of your idea that the earth is flat.
[blah-blah-blah]
How does Proverbs 8:27 support your assertion that the earth is flat?
Because a compass is not a ball. This is common sense.
So there's no a "ball" can be made "with a certain law and compass?"
How can something flat "enclose the depths?"
-
-delete-
Wrong thread.
-
You should be banned because of the protestant nature of your methodology--not because of your idea that the earth is flat.
[blah-blah-blah]
How does Proverbs 8:27 support your assertion that the earth is flat?
Because a compass is not a ball. This is common sense.
So there's no a "ball" can be made "with a certain law and compass?"
How can something flat "enclose the depths?"
The earth can enclose the same way a pool with a center island (representing mountains) can... and the edge of the pool is the enclosure.
-
You should be banned because of the protestant nature of your methodology--not because of your idea that the earth is flat.
[blah-blah-blah]
How does Proverbs 8:27 support your assertion that the earth is flat?
Because a compass is not a ball. This is common sense.
So there's no a "ball" can be made "with a certain law and compass?"
How can something flat "enclose the depths?"
The earth can enclose the same way a pool with a center island (representing mountains) can... and the edge of the pool is the enclosure.
In fact, a globe cannot enclose the depths, but leaves the depths exposed and acting as the enclosure itself since the water on a globe exceeds the amount of land. Another global contradiction.
-
You should be banned because of the protestant nature of your methodology--not because of your idea that the earth is flat.
[blah-blah-blah]
How does Proverbs 8:27 support your assertion that the earth is flat?
Because a compass is not a ball. This is common sense.
So there's no a "ball" can be made "with a certain law and compass?"
How can something flat "enclose the depths?"
The earth can enclose the same way a pool with a center island (representing mountains) can... and the edge of the pool is the enclosure.
In fact, a globe cannot enclose the depths, but leaves the depths exposed and acting as the enclosure itself since the water on a globe exceeds the amount of land. Another global contradiction.
Your explanation is a matter of interpretation of Scripture, and is inappropriate to be posited as the final say by a laymen. Since the Bible uses words such as "globe" and "encompass," it could as easily mean encompassed the depths of the center of the earth with the globe that is earth. I think you're wrong--you think I'm wrong. Now to go beyond that and proffer our respective positions as the final say on the matter would be to commit the heresy of private interpretation.
In fact, I think to even get excessively locked in on and proud of a particular interpretation is amounts to private interpretation. I am afraid that I have flirted perilously close to this too. But I have throughout left room (at least a little) for the possibility that my understanding may be wrong and that the earth may be flat. As I have stated numerous times now--it's not the belief in flat-earthism that I am insisting is so horribly wrong. It is the insistence that you laymen (women at that--ugh) maintain the position that is the final say on the matter. That in and of itself is heretical.
mw2016 even engaged in reading extra verbiage (flat) into scripture to fabricate an appearance of a sturdier foundation to her position, and, at least implicitly, indicated that the Douay-Rheims must be wrong because the wording doesn't suit her. Uncomfortably protestantesque.
I have lived in the South my entire life and do not have a problem with quoting Scripture. But the fine parsing of passages is to be left to the Church. Unlike protestants, we Catholics are supposed to be sophisticated enough to understand that. Also, living in the South has made me able to keenly spot protestant argumentation.
-
You should be banned because of the protestant nature of your methodology--not because of your idea that the earth is flat.
[blah-blah-blah]
How does Proverbs 8:27 support your assertion that the earth is flat?
Because a compass is not a ball. This is common sense.
So there's no a "ball" can be made "with a certain law and compass?"
How can something flat "enclose the depths?"
The earth can enclose the same way a pool with a center island (representing mountains) can... and the edge of the pool is the enclosure.
In fact, a globe cannot enclose the depths, but leaves the depths exposed and acting as the enclosure itself since the water on a globe exceeds the amount of land. Another global contradiction.
Your explanation is a matter of interpretation of Scripture, and is inappropriate to be posited as the final say by a laymen. Since the Bible uses words such as "globe" and "encompass," it could as easily mean encompassed the depths of the center of the earth with the globe that is earth. I think you're wrong--you think I'm wrong. Now to go beyond that and proffer our respective positions as the final say on the matter would be to commit the heresy of private interpretation.
In fact, I think to even get excessively locked in on and proud of a particular interpretation is amounts to private interpretation. I am afraid that I have flirted perilously close to this too. But I have throughout left room (at least a little) for the possibility that my understanding may be wrong and that the earth may be flat. As I have stated numerous times now--it's not the belief in flat-earthism that I am insisting is so horribly wrong. It is the insistence that you laymen (women at that--ugh) maintain the position that is the final say on the matter. That in and of itself is heretical.
mw2016 even engaged in reading extra verbiage (flat) into scripture to fabricate an appearance of a sturdier foundation to her position, and, at least implicitly, indicated that the Douay-Rheims must be wrong because the wording doesn't suit her. Uncomfortably protestantesque.
I have lived in the South my entire life and do not have a problem with quoting Scripture. But the fine parsing of passages is to be left to the Church. Unlike protestants, we Catholics are supposed to be sophisticated enough to understand that. Also, living in the South has made me able to keenly spot protestant argumentation.
No, this is not just my interpretation, but the Church's interpretation, the Fathers of the Church's interpretation. Had you read the book "The Pontifical Decrees...", using the link I provided, you would know this. Had you looked into this from a Catholic perspective at all, rather than toss up all manner of arguments long ago refuted, you wouldn't be defending the pagan Pythagorean Doctrine of the cosmos. Anyone worth his salt knows that once a book is translated, there is chance of error. That's why we go back to the Latin, or the Greek, for clarification. Some people say the Hebrew word for "circle" means "sphere" indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since the Hebrew word gh means "circle,". Also it is very remote that it means "sphere" because of the context, and there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball." If the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. Plugging the meaning of "sphere" into every passage that gh occurs will result in awkward interpretations.
These aren't just my words, but the words of the Church that I'm relaying. It is incuмbent upon you to research further without scoffing or denying before you have had an education in the matter.
-
The earth can enclose the same way a pool with a center island (representing mountains) can... and the edge of the pool is the enclosure.
In fact, a globe cannot enclose the depths, but leaves the depths exposed and acting as the enclosure itself since the water on a globe exceeds the amount of land. Another global contradiction.
Happenby makes a very astute observation.
:rahrah:
-
Also, living in the South has made me able to keenly spot protestant argumentation.
I'm not from the South, and wouldn't know Protestant argumentation if it hit me in the face.
Perhaps you should be happy that the college of Douay mysteriously used the English word "globe" for the Latin word "gyrum" in Isaiah 40:22, maybe it can be the 'loophole' for the doubting Thomas Catholics such as yourself who won't humble themselves to the Bible's flat earth teachings.
-
These aren't just my words, but the words of the Church that I'm relaying. It is incuмbent upon you to research further without scoffing or denying before you have had an education in the matter.
Well said.
:rahrah:
-
(http://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/600x600p/photos.demandstudios.com/31/39/fotolia_11443929_XS.jpg)
-
(http://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/600x600p/photos.demandstudios.com/31/39/fotolia_11443929_XS.jpg)
Typical non response from someone who came up short but can't admit it.
-
You have yet to prove anything you must furnish proof. you are asserting the Fathers say the earth is flat not me. BTW since the circuмference of the earth was proven BC by Greeks, burden of proof lies with you to provide credible proof
-
You have yet to prove anything you must furnish proof. you are asserting the Fathers say the earth is flat not me. BTW since the circuмference of the earth was proven BC by Greeks, burden of proof lies with you to provide credible proof
The Greeks' calculations (25,000 miles C) were WRONG about the earth's circuмference, as PROVEN experientially by ships sailing the Antarctic.
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
“Yes, but we can circuмnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
-
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
“Yes, but we can circuмnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.”
tinfoil hat alert
Cook commanded HMS Resolution on this voyage, while Tobias Furneaux commanded its companion ship, HMS Adventure. Cook's expedition circuмnavigated the globe at an extreme southern latitude, becoming one of the first to cross the Antarctic Circle (17 January 1773). In the Antarctic fog, Resolution and Adventure became separated. Furneaux made his way to New Zealand, where he lost some of his men during an encounter with M?ori, and eventually sailed back to Britain, while Cook continued to explore the Antarctic, reaching 71°10'S on 31 January 1774.
Cook almost encountered the mainland of Antarctica, but turned towards Tahiti to resupply his ship. He then resumed his southward course in a second fruitless attempt to find the supposed continent. On this leg of the voyage he brought a young Tahitian named Omai, who proved to be somewhat less knowledgeable about the Pacific than Tupaia had been on the first voyage. On his return voyage to New Zealand in 1774, Cook landed at the Friendly Islands, Easter Island, Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, and Vanuatu.
Before returning to England, Cook made a final sweep across the South Atlantic from Cape Horn and surveyed, mapped and took possession for Britain of South Georgia, which had been explored by Anthony de la Roché in 1675. Cook also discovered and named Clerke Rocks and the South Sandwich Islands ("Sandwich Land"). He then turned north to South Africa, and from there continued back to England. His reports upon his return home put to rest the popular myth of Terra Australis.
-
(http://s4.thingpic.com/images/43/ThPE4VK834gcit3RKyh1c2ot.jpeg)
southhampton to cape town
Distance:
7039 nm
in land miles
miles 8,215.4 x2 = 16430miles
plus other detours
-
You have yet to prove anything you must furnish proof. you are asserting the Fathers say the earth is flat not me. BTW since the circuмference of the earth was proven BC by Greeks, burden of proof lies with you to provide credible proof
I've furnished you with all kinds of proof, but you pooh pooh it, favoring the modern science view. Oh, yea...the Greeks. Now there's a loyal to God bunch. Let's believe them!
-
Ball earthers, where's the curve? Prove your earth is a ball. Railroads, aircraft, buildings, lasers, all testify to failure to prove curve. Somebody please show curve commensurate with a ball 25,000 miles in circuмference or there is no argument for heliocentrism's sphere.
-
(http://s4.thingpic.com/images/43/ThPE4VK834gcit3RKyh1c2ot.jpeg)
southhampton to cape town
Distance:
7039 nm
in land miles
miles 8,215.4 x2 = 16430miles
plus other detours
Proof of flat earth because the ball must necessarily be way smaller (25% of the distance at the equator at best) at the southern regions at that latitude.
-
When did I give you any indication of belief in modern science. You have given nothing from the fathers indicating a flat earth.
-
The word "globe" in Isaiah 40:22 is from Bishop Challoner's version of the Douay-Rheims. The original Douay says:
(https://s10.postimg.org/5wsiniayh/Screen_Shot_2016_09_16_at_06_58_30.png)
https://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n1511/mode/1up
"He that sitteth upon the compasse of the earth, and the inhabitants therof are as locustes."
Whereas Bp. Challoner gives us:
"It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts."
Obviously, Challoner wanted to conform the text to modern cosmology, to show its conformity to the science of the day. Most translations give "circle": http://biblehub.com/isaiah/40-22.htm
-
Obviously, Challoner wanted to conform the text to modern cosmology, to show its conformity to the science of the day.
This is a quite heavy charge to level at Bishop Challoner. Have reputable theologians made similar accusations?
-
This is a silly discussion. We won't know definitively until the last day when we all are hopefully taken to heaven.
-
This is a silly discussion. We won't know definitively until the last day when we all are hopefully taken to heaven.
I agree. Even though I don't believe the earth is flat, I acknowledge that I may be wrong. What sounds so foreign to my sensus Catholicus, and what I can't let go in these flat-earther threads is the unbridled pride and confidence placed in protestantesque private interpretations and discounting, trivializing, and attacking the most widely used English interpretation of the Bible by traditional Catholics. That and imbecilic efforts at logic. And NASA be damned, but let's all rush to trust the musings of a "fallen away" Catholic, a Buddhist, and I forget what else mw2016 boasted spearheads the flat-earther movement.
I just remembered another movement of folks who sound as un-educated as the flat-earthers--"birthers." Unlike my view of the flat-earthers' position, I do wholeheartedly believe the birthers' position is correct. But the Joe Smoos on the street I have heard "explaining" it have scarcely not left me wondering who ties their shoes. They actually detract from the legitimacy of the position as do most of the musings that I have seen here detract from the credibility, if any, that the flat-earth position may have.
-
What sounds so foreign to my sensus Catholicus, and what I can't let go in these flat-earther threads is the unbridled pride and confidence placed in protestantesque private interpretations and discounting, trivializing, and attacking the most widely used English interpretation of the Bible by traditional Catholics. That and imbecilic efforts at logic.
I agree completely.
-
The word "globe" in Isaiah 40:22 is from Bishop Challoner's version of the Douay-Rheims. The original Douay says:
(https://s10.postimg.org/5wsiniayh/Screen_Shot_2016_09_16_at_06_58_30.png)
https://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n1511/mode/1up
"He that sitteth upon the compasse of the earth, and the inhabitants therof are as locustes."
Read it and weep.
It does not say GLOBE.
It says COMPASS - a compass is a CIRCLE.
-
(http://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sola-scriptura.png)
-
(http://churchmousec.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/postmodernism-sbcimpactnet.jpg?w=490)
-
Obviously, Challoner wanted to conform the text to modern cosmology, to show its conformity to the science of the day.
This is a quite heavy charge to level at Bishop Challoner. Have reputable theologians made similar accusations?
I wouldn't call it an accusation. I'm sure Bishop Challoner did it in good faith, and that he thought it quite rational. Your position of a kind of "inerrancy of Douay-Rheims" is not based on any Church teaching, and mirrors the idea of some Protestants that the KJV is completely inerrant; and it is especially silly considering that the version of the Douay-Rheims popular today is not even the original, but Bishop Challoner's more modern revision of it. I like Challoner's Douay-Rheims myself. It's the one that I have and use at home. That doesn't mean that it's perfect. I put more trust in the Vulgate, which is what the Douay-Rheims is based upon.
-
This is a silly discussion. We won't know definitively until the last day when we all are hopefully taken to heaven.
We not only can know, at least by Faith, trusting the Church and the Early Church Fathers, but also by flat out rejecting the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr's version of creation. These NWO slave drivers serve the father of lies who has no truth in him. We know that lies enslave, and how much clearer does it have to get to know that there has been a paradigm shift over the past 500 years, an imbibing of pagan doctrine, loss of Faith and that a new slavery awaits us?
There is another Cathinfo category on Galileo and VII. And a quote by Ratzinger says quite a lot about the matter and how important it is to get it right:
"And we knew that the relationship between the Church and the modern period, right from the outset, had been slightly fraught, beginning with the Church’s error in the case of Galileo Galilei; we were looking to correct this mistaken start and to rediscover the union between the Church and the best forces of the world, so as to open up humanity’s future, to open up true progress."
My response:
Rat zinger says quite a lot here! Firstly, his statement proves geocentrism is a certainty, because the Church cannot err, as he asserts. Secondly, Ratz is actively working to promote science falsely so-called that scripture warns about. Thirdly, he shows that by use of "we" that he is working with others to accomplish the goal. Fourthly, that "they" fully intend to carry their false science into the future so it must be of great importance to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Fifth, since there can be no union between the Church and the forces of the world, RatZinger proves himself in cahoots with evil plans poised to marry darkness with light, seeking what cannot be, and therefore, a usurper, and fully united to Bergog. Its amazing how transparent he is in just a few words. There may be more, but these are the ones that stood out at first glance.
-
This is a silly discussion. We won't know definitively until the last day when we all are hopefully taken to heaven.
Your statement has the bizarre echo of what non-believers usually say in general about God: we cannot know definitively that He exists.
You CAN know what He said about the shape of His Creation because He tells you all about it in the Bible.
-
Obviously, Challoner wanted to conform the text to modern cosmology, to show its conformity to the science of the day.
This is a quite heavy charge to level at Bishop Challoner. Have reputable theologians made similar accusations?
I wouldn't call it an accusation. I'm sure Bishop Challoner did it in good faith, and that he thought it quite rational.
To say that Bishop Challoner worded his translation to conform "to the science of the day" is most certainly an accusation, and a quite dastardly one at that. And if flat-earthism has been infallibly pronounced, how could Bishop Challoner not only ignore that, plus have his translation accepted, at least de facto, as the English translation for Catholicism.
And let's say you prefer the word "compass." That does not necessitate flatness. As for other translations, I neither concede that they necessitate flatness nor that protestants and novus ordites got something more correct than either version of the Douay-Rheims did.
We WOULD NOT be having this discussion if the words of the Bible were crystal clear or if the Church had made an infallible pronouncement. In light of that, the insistence on the part of the flat-earthers is correct beyond any possibility of doubt exemplifies pride--a sin--pride in their private interpretation--a heresy. I think the whole notion of flat-earth is silly. But I dare not usurp the power of the Church to interpret the Bible. I believe either way the topic does not merit an infallible pronouncement. But IF one is ever set out, that will be what I believe whatever it is or how big of a dunce cap the world may insist I wear for believing it.
-
Obviously, Challoner wanted to conform the text to modern cosmology, to show its conformity to the science of the day.
This is a quite heavy charge to level at Bishop Challoner. Have reputable theologians made similar accusations?
I wouldn't call it an accusation. I'm sure Bishop Challoner did it in good faith, and that he thought it quite rational.
To say that Bishop Challoner worded his translation to conform "to the science of the day" is most certainly an accusation, and a quite dastardly one at that. And if flat-earthism has been infallibly pronounced, how could Bishop Challoner not only ignore that, plus have his translation accepted, at least de facto, as the English translation for Catholicism.
And let's say you prefer the word "compass." That does not necessitate flatness. As for other translations, I neither concede that they necessitate flatness nor that protestants and novus ordites got something more correct than either version of the Douay-Rheims did.
We WOULD NOT be having this discussion if the words of the Bible were crystal clear or if the Church had made an infallible pronouncement. In light of that, the insistence on the part of the flat-earthers is correct beyond any possibility of doubt exemplifies pride--a sin--pride in their private interpretation--a heresy. I think the whole notion of flat-earth is silly. But I dare not usurp the power of the Church to interpret the Bible. I believe either way the topic does not merit an infallible pronouncement. But IF one is ever set out, that will be what I believe whatever it is or how big of a dunce cap the world may insist I wear for believing it.
This is beyond my comprehension. There is nothing of the heliocentric model found in scripture. Zero. And yet ball earthers have the nerve to complain that scripture isn't clear. They'll even admit scripture favors flat earth, but that doesn't mean anything because clarity in the matter is just not quite up to par. The Church should have made an infallible pronouncement, or there's no reason to let go of the ball. Hold securely to false science just in case there's something decent in it. Forget proof for flat earth is pouring in the doors, and that there is literally not one single proof for round earth or heliocentrism. No curvature. No movement of earth. But they went to school! Learned about the ball. No, their wounded egos cannot let go, despite proof that moving earth scientists are proven liars. But hey, they couldn't have lied about EVERYTHING! Its just gotta be a sphere! In the meantime, those frickin flat earthers better get some de fide statements and state of the art video because, until then, globalists rule!
I really shouldn't rant so. Faith and grace are gifts.
-
OHCA fears the dunce cap.
Myself, happenby, irt, azyria, St John the Evangelist have no fear of the dunce cap.
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
-
I believe it doesn't matter what science is shown or what examples are given to prove a spherical earth; these pieces of evidence can be dismissed as being forged, or false, or part of a NASA conspiracy, or bad education, or just uninformed opinions, or whatever excuse happens to be most expedient. There is no way to move forward with such closed-minded individuals, for they will always come up with excuses to justify their unwillingness to listen.
There is no evidence which will convince someone who is supremely convinced of the inerrancy of their own position, in a topic which has not been dogmatically defined by the Church. We know what the Church teaches about geocentrism, but no infallible docuмents refer specifically to the flat earth as being the model of the earth. I would not even go so far as saying that the Scriptures favor a flat earth, but that the Scriptures can be read from both a spherical or flat earth position.
What we have is a pointless and fruitless discussion. Until I can see an infallible docuмent which says that the earth is flat, I will not give it much consideration. I will also refuse to give any credence to the downright insane notion of a self-illuminating moon, for so many reasons I have previously discussed.
What disturbs me most of this is that some of those who espouse a flat earth will claim that souls could go to hell for not believing the earth is flat. There is simply no justification for this brazen claim. It is not a sin to see the earth as spherical, and to see scriptural and physical evidence as suggesting this notion. You cannot declare it to be a sin, for the Church has not declared it to be a sin. You are not God.
This thread surely has to die now. This dead horse has been beaten, drowned, shot and stabbed, and its carcass used for glue and Jell-O.
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, so while there are passages that refer to a flat earth indirectly, the words flat earth are not there.
I'm lifting the quote below from a website online but it is a fraction of what's in scripture and just the beginning of understanding flat earth, recognizing in the descriptions that earth is not spherical, but a plane with four distinct directions, a face, four corners, a dome above it, etc.
The Order of Creation
The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
The Vault of Heaven
The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:
Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
The Shape of the Earth
Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
Below is a link to a conference at St. Anne's New Horizons about the flat earth. This covers some of the simple science of flat earth but also deals with the why... why would they lie about the shape of the earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuW9CqhBdE
-
OHCA fears the dunce cap.
Myself, happenby, irt, azyria, St John the Evangelist have no fear of the dunce cap.
You twist my words. But I should expect no less from a woman who protestantesquely twists the Word of God.
-
Obviously, Challoner wanted to conform the text to modern cosmology, to show its conformity to the science of the day.
This is a quite heavy charge to level at Bishop Challoner. Have reputable theologians made similar accusations?
I wouldn't call it an accusation. I'm sure Bishop Challoner did it in good faith, and that he thought it quite rational.
To say that Bishop Challoner worded his translation to conform "to the science of the day" is most certainly an accusation, and a quite dastardly one at that. And if flat-earthism has been infallibly pronounced, how could Bishop Challoner not only ignore that, plus have his translation accepted, at least de facto, as the English translation for Catholicism.
And let's say you prefer the word "compass." That does not necessitate flatness. As for other translations, I neither concede that they necessitate flatness nor that protestants and novus ordites got something more correct than either version of the Douay-Rheims did.
We WOULD NOT be having this discussion if the words of the Bible were crystal clear or if the Church had made an infallible pronouncement. In light of that, the insistence on the part of the flat-earthers is correct beyond any possibility of doubt exemplifies pride--a sin--pride in their private interpretation--a heresy. I think the whole notion of flat-earth is silly. But I dare not usurp the power of the Church to interpret the Bible. I believe either way the topic does not merit an infallible pronouncement. But IF one is ever set out, that will be what I believe whatever it is or how big of a dunce cap the world may insist I wear for believing it.
This is beyond my comprehension.
Yes--very obviously so. My point is that you and mw2016, more so mw2016, sound like protestants arguing your point. It is beyond your comprehension that I don't really give a damn whether the earth is flat or not. Just don't twist Scripture and add to Scripture in efforts to prove that it is.
There is nothing of the heliocentric model found in scripture. Zero. And yet ball earthers have the nerve to complain that scripture isn't clear. They'll even admit scripture favors flat earth, but that doesn't mean anything because clarity in the matter is just not quite up to par. The Church should have made an infallible pronouncement, or there's no reason to let go of the ball.
I don't "complain" that Scripture isn't clear. I accept that. But you, like a good protestant, make it clear by heretically privately interpreting it.
Hold securely to false science just in case there's something decent in it. Forget proof for flat earth is pouring in the doors, and that there is literally not one single proof for round earth or heliocentrism. No curvature. No movement of earth.
Not in this fight because of this. This is frankly boring to me--science has always bored me to tears. Why I am riled up and why I finally got in these flat earth discussions after 60 or 70 or so pages had been written, is in scanning them I started seeing protestantism.
But they went to school! Learned about the ball. No, their wounded egos cannot let go, despite proof that moving earth scientists are proven liars. But hey, they couldn't have lied about EVERYTHING! Its just gotta be a sphere!
Never said "they couldn't have lied about EVERYTHING!" They COULD have. I merely pointed out your flawed logic that because they lied about SOME things, they had to have lied about EVERYTHNG.
In the meantime, those frickin flat earthers better get some de fide statements and state of the art video because, until then, globalists rule!
I won't watch it--I have never intently watched those of the other side either. It is boring material and a boring topic. If it is important to my soul, the Church will tell me what to believe and that is what I will believe. Until then, though I don't preclude the possibility of its correctness, flat-earth sounds stupid to me.
More persuasive than any pics/vids you or NASA can show me would be a credible story of somebody sailing off of the face of the earth. Given today's media, I don't find much credible though.
I really shouldn't rant so. Faith and grace are gifts.
Threads about baking cookies, recipes, veil patterns, etc. are more appropriate for ladies than, contrary to what modern education says, math and science.
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
No--they absolutely cannot. Everywhere they read "circle," they read into it a word that isn't there, i.e., "flat," to make it read "flat circle." And for that matter, they quote the KJV and conciliarist "bibles" to even get the word "circle" in some passages where it is not found in the Douay-Rheims.
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, so while there are passages that refer to a flat earth indirectly, the words flat earth are not there.
I'm lifting the quote below from a website online but it is a fraction of what's in scripture and just the beginning of understanding flat earth, recognizing in the descriptions that earth is not spherical, but a plane with four distinct directions, a face, four corners, a dome above it, etc.
The Order of Creation
The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
The Vault of Heaven
The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:
Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
The Shape of the Earth
Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
Below is a link to a conference at St. Anne's New Horizons about the flat earth. This covers some of the simple science of flat earth but also deals with the why... why would they lie about the shape of the earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuW9CqhBdE
What is the blue quoted from? Who authored it?
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
No--they absolutely cannot. Everywhere they read "circle," they read into it a word that isn't there, i.e., "flat," to make it read "flat circle." And for that matter, they quote the KJV and conciliarist "bibles" to even get the word "circle" in some passages where it is not found in the Douay-Rheims.
mw2016 answered this and so did I. The word in scripture texts for circle and the word for ball are different, and mean different things. Just like in English. The word for circle was used in scripture texts originally. Translation to ball necessarily must be a translation based on the encroaching idea earth was a globe, because it wasn't based on the actual word used, so any translation using the word ball is necessarily a mis translation.
The King James bible is missing 6 books, so it is sometimes necessary to consider the original texts.
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, so while there are passages that refer to a flat earth indirectly, the words flat earth are not there.
I'm lifting the quote below from a website online but it is a fraction of what's in scripture and just the beginning of understanding flat earth, recognizing in the descriptions that earth is not spherical, but a plane with four distinct directions, a face, four corners, a dome above it, etc.
The Order of Creation
The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
The Vault of Heaven
The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:
Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
The Shape of the Earth
Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
Below is a link to a conference at St. Anne's New Horizons about the flat earth. This covers some of the simple science of flat earth but also deals with the why... why would they lie about the shape of the earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuW9CqhBdE
What is the blue quoted from? Who authored it?
The man's name is Robert J. Schadewald. He is a Protestant, but his description here happens to be consistent with scripture texts and consistent with the observations of the Early Church Fathers. The passages are clear enough when one considers that these passages cannot be reconciled with a globe. Man has from the beginning, Christendom included, and even the pagan world believed in a flat, geocentric universe. The heliocentric model of the universe, bandied about but ignored, only took foothold in the late 1500's.
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
No--they absolutely cannot. Everywhere they read "circle," they read into it a word that isn't there, i.e., "flat," to make it read "flat circle." And for that matter, they quote the KJV and conciliarist "bibles" to even get the word "circle" in some passages where it is not found in the Douay-Rheims.
Now who is sounding Protestant? "Prove that Mary ascended using scripture!" The fact is, the Early Church Fathers were largely flat earthers as were all ancient peoples until pagans began worshiping the sun. The heresy of round moving earth for the masses came about by a Jєωιѕн Cabal intent on discrediting scripture. Just like Catholicism cannot instantly be proven pointing to one passage or another, scripture and history and tradition take time to sift through to understand the whole story.
As St. Augstine said so beautifully:"Major est Scripturae auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas." "Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind." --St. Augustine, Commentary on the Book of Genesis
"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part that is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man." --St. Augustine
-
As St. Augustine shows above, the purpose of the round moving earth model was to discredit scripture that all men descended from Adam and Eve and were thus all in need of redemption. This can be seen in our day with the search for life on other "planets" as well as evolutionary theory that man came not from the first two human beings, but from a godless Big Bang.
-
Eratosthenes, Pythagoras. Aristotle, Archimedes, and Plato, and nearly all of the fathers of round, moving earth were unbelievers. As were Galileo, Newton, Keplar and Einstein. It shouldn't take a brick to the head to see that the theory was born of those who wanted to discredit scripture.
Oh, and lets not forget NASA. The poster child of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr proven epic liar for the so-called moon landing.
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
No--they absolutely cannot. Everywhere they read "circle," they read into it a word that isn't there, i.e., "flat," to make it read "flat circle." And for that matter, they quote the KJV and conciliarist "bibles" to even get the word "circle" in some passages where it is not found in the Douay-Rheims.
Now who is sounding Protestant? "Prove that Mary ascended using scripture!"
You and mw2016 whimsically adding "flat circle" where, at best for your argument, it should simply say "circle," cannot be justified simply by saying "Probe Mary ascended using scripture!"
I can assure you of this: The Church does twist and add words to Scripture to prove it.
Your bud mw2016, and to a slightly lesser extent you, are who sound like Bible-Only protestants. Come up with your own private interpretation and that is all there is.
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
No--they absolutely cannot. Everywhere they read "circle," they read into it a word that isn't there, i.e., "flat," to make it read "flat circle." And for that matter, they quote the KJV and conciliarist "bibles" to even get the word "circle" in some passages where it is not found in the Douay-Rheims.
Now who is sounding Protestant? "Prove that Mary ascended using scripture!"
You and mw2016 whimsically adding "flat circle" where, at best for your argument, it should simply say "circle," cannot be justified simply by saying "Probe Mary ascended using scripture!"
I can assure you of this: The Church does twist and add words to Scripture to prove it.
Your bud mw2016, and to a slightly lesser extent you, are who sound like Bible-Only protestants. Come up with your own private interpretation and that is all there is.
It wasn't the Church that directed a mis translation of the word for circle. The translation is not in keeping with the original word if translated to ball. Stranger things have happened in the history of the Church, but this kind of machination by the enemy is proof that the subject is indeed extremely important.
Apparently, you missed St. Augustine's quote above, so here it is again:"Major est Scripturae auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas." "Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind." --St. Augustine, Commentary on the Book of Genesis
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, so while there are passages that refer to a flat earth indirectly, the words flat earth are not there.
I'm lifting the quote below from a website online but it is a fraction of what's in scripture and just the beginning of understanding flat earth, recognizing in the descriptions that earth is not spherical, but a plane with four distinct directions, a face, four corners, a dome above it, etc.
The Order of Creation
The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
The Vault of Heaven
The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:
Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
The Shape of the Earth
Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
Below is a link to a conference at St. Anne's New Horizons about the flat earth. This covers some of the simple science of flat earth but also deals with the why... why would they lie about the shape of the earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuW9CqhBdE
What is the blue quoted from? Who authored it?
The man's name is Robert J. Schadewald. He is a Protestant, but his description here happens to be consistent with scripture texts and consistent with the observations of the Early Church Fathers. The passages are clear enough when one considers that these passages cannot be reconciled with a globe. Man has from the beginning, Christendom included, and even the pagan world believed in a flat, geocentric universe. The heliocentric model of the universe, bandied about but ignored, only took foothold in the late 1500's.
You should be banned for justifying the quoting of a protestant expounding on the meaning of Scripture.
Mw2016--you should be banned for shamelessly quoting a protestant's "explanation" of Scripture. If his explanation happens to coincide with a Catholic explanation, then find and quote that. Leave the heretic's explanation out of it!! Who gives a damn what a heretic has to say about Faith, religion, or Scripture?!?!?!
You two beat everything!!
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, so while there are passages that refer to a flat earth indirectly, the words flat earth are not there.
I'm lifting the quote below from a website online but it is a fraction of what's in scripture and just the beginning of understanding flat earth, recognizing in the descriptions that earth is not spherical, but a plane with four distinct directions, a face, four corners, a dome above it, etc.
The Order of Creation
The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
The Vault of Heaven
The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:
Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
The Shape of the Earth
Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
Below is a link to a conference at St. Anne's New Horizons about the flat earth. This covers some of the simple science of flat earth but also deals with the why... why would they lie about the shape of the earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuW9CqhBdE
What is the blue quoted from? Who authored it?
The man's name is Robert J. Schadewald. He is a Protestant, but his description here happens to be consistent with scripture texts and consistent with the observations of the Early Church Fathers. The passages are clear enough when one considers that these passages cannot be reconciled with a globe. Man has from the beginning, Christendom included, and even the pagan world believed in a flat, geocentric universe. The heliocentric model of the universe, bandied about but ignored, only took foothold in the late 1500's.
You should be banned for justifying the quoting of a protestant expounding on the meaning of Scripture.
Mw2016--you should be banned for shamelessly quoting a protestant's "explanation" of Scripture. If his explanation happens to coincide with a Catholic explanation, then find and quote that. Leave the heretic's explanation out of it!! Who gives a damn what a heretic has to say about Faith, religion, or Scripture?!?!?!
You two beat everything!!
Right. This is the lamest excuse for rejecting Catholic teaching I've ever seen. The man happens to be supporting Catholic teaching, history and science.
What's so fascinating about your position is that as I've shown above, it is completely founded on pagan theory. Now who should be banned?
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, so while there are passages that refer to a flat earth indirectly, the words flat earth are not there.
I'm lifting the quote below from a website online but it is a fraction of what's in scripture and just the beginning of understanding flat earth, recognizing in the descriptions that earth is not spherical, but a plane with four distinct directions, a face, four corners, a dome above it, etc.
The Order of Creation
The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
The Vault of Heaven
The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:
Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
The Shape of the Earth
Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
Below is a link to a conference at St. Anne's New Horizons about the flat earth. This covers some of the simple science of flat earth but also deals with the why... why would they lie about the shape of the earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuW9CqhBdE
What is the blue quoted from? Who authored it?
The man's name is Robert J. Schadewald. He is a Protestant, but his description here happens to be consistent with scripture texts and consistent with the observations of the Early Church Fathers. The passages are clear enough when one considers that these passages cannot be reconciled with a globe. Man has from the beginning, Christendom included, and even the pagan world believed in a flat, geocentric universe. The heliocentric model of the universe, bandied about but ignored, only took foothold in the late 1500's.
You should be banned for justifying the quoting of a protestant expounding on the meaning of Scripture.
Mw2016--you should be banned for shamelessly quoting a protestant's "explanation" of Scripture. If his explanation happens to coincide with a Catholic explanation, then find and quote that. Leave the heretic's explanation out of it!! Who gives a damn what a heretic has to say about Faith, religion, or Scripture?!?!?!
You two beat everything!!
Right. This is the lamest excuse for rejecting Catholic teaching I've ever seen. The man happens to be supporting Catholic teaching, history and science.
What's so fascinating about your position is that as I've shown above, it is completely founded on pagan theory. Now who should be banned?
You should be.
Are you going to quote Billy Graham, Joel Olsteen, Jimmy Swaggart, etc., just because you think the point they're making happens to be consistent with the Catholic position?
My position? I don't have an entrenched position about flat-earth. I think it's stupid, but I readily admit that I may be the stupid one.
MY POSITION is that you and mw2016 are arguing like protestsnts, mincing Scripture, and quoting God knows what all unapproachables, and be assured that He does, to the expedience of your entrenched position of which you are so proud, and that that is un-Catholic and WRONG!
-
OHCA This subject is difficult already because the truth has been buried. Because its been buried, its not easy to access quickly the information. If what we are saying is true, there is a lot at stake: Your freedom, literally, a lot of money and most importantly, the truth. Your humility is noted and might-be-wrong is where truth begins. If you don't believe what is said here, no problem, but lets not go bootin' each other out simply because we have come to an impasse. There is so much more to know.
-
The following is written by a Catholic monk in the 6th century. The original book sits in the Vatican library and of it it has been said that it was the definitive strike against heliocentrism in its day. I've linked to the online book below. Chapters 4 and 5 cover the flat earth, but it is covered elsewhere too.
Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography (1897) pp. 129-137. Book 4
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cosmas_04_book4.htm
BOOK IV.
A summary recapitulation and description of the figures of the world; also the refutation of the sphere.
IT is written: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.1 We therefore first depict along with the earth, the heaven which is vaulted and which has its extremities bound together with the extremities of the earth. To the best of our ability we have endeavoured to delineate it on its western side and its eastern; for these two sides are walls, extending from below to the vault above. There is also the firmament which, in the middle, is bound together with the first heaven, and which, on its upper side, has the waters according to divine scripture itself. The position and figure are such as here sketched.2 To the extremities on the four sides of the earth the heaven is fastened at its own four extremities, making the figure of a cube, that is to say, a quadrangular figure, while up above it curves round in the form of an oblong vault and becomes as it were a vast canopy. And in the middle the firmament is made fast to it, and thus two places are formed.
From the earth to the firmament is the first place, this world, namely, in which are the angels and men and all the |130 present state of existence. From the firmament again to the vault above is the second place----the Kingdom of Heaven, into which Christ, first of all, entered, after his ascension, having prepared for us a new and living way.
On the western side and the eastern the outline presented is short,3 as in the case of an oblong4 vault, but on its north and south sides it shows its length. Its figure is therefore something such as this.5
Note.
This is the first heaven, shaped like a vaulted chamber, which was created on the first day along with the earth, and of it Isaiah speaks thus: He that hath established the heaven as a vaulted chamber.5 But the heaven, which is bound to the first at the middle, is that which was created on the second day, to which [187] Isaiah refers when he says: And having stretched it out as a tent to dwell in.6 David also says concerning it: Stretching out the heaven as a curtain,7 and indicating it still more clearly he says: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters.6 Now, when Scripture speaks of the extremities of heaven and earth, this cannot be understood as applicable to a sphere. Isaiah again says: Thus saith the Lord, he that made the heaven and pitched it;8 and the Apostle in like manner says: Of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man.9 They both speak of the heaven as standing on and fixed on the earth, and not as revolving round it. Nay more, the extremities of the heaven are bound together with the extremities of the earth, and on both sides, and concerning this it is written in Job: And he inclined heaven to earth, and the earth is poured out as dust, and I have fastened it as a square block to a stone.10 And with regard to the earth it is again written in Job: He that hangeth the earth upon nothing;11 meaning, that it had nothing underneath it. And David in harmony with this, when he could discover nothing on |131 which it was founded, says: He that hath founded the earth upon its own stability,12 as if he said, it hath been founded by thee upon itself, and not upon anything else.
-
Christian Topography by Cosmas Indiocopleustes
Chapter IV
...
And how again was it possible for the earth, which according to you is placed in the very middle of the universe, to have been submerged by the deluge in the time of Noah? or how can it be believed that on the first and the second day it was covered by the waters, and on the third, when the waters were gathered together, that it made its appearance, as is recorded in Genesis? But with even greater wisdom ye suppose that there are men walking all the earth over with their feet opposite the feet of other men. We therefore depict according to your view the earth and the Antipodes,24 and let each one of you who has sound vision and the power of reasoning justly turn the earth round whatever way he pleases, and let him say whether the Antipodes can be all standing upright in the same sense of the expression. But this they will not show even should they speak unrestrained by shame. Such then is our reply to your fictitious and false theories and to the conclusions of your reasonings which are capricious, self-contradictory, inconsistent, doomed to be utterly confounded, and |137 to be whirled round and round even more than that unstable and revolving mythical sphere of yours. Wherefore, O Christ-loving Father, since I have thus brought to an end the fourth book with a delineation of the Antipodes, I shall begin the fifth book, as I promised at thy pious desire, and it will contain a description of the Tabernacle prepared by Moses in the wilderness, if God will, who is the Saviour of us all.
-
But no one on these threads has argued for the model of Cosmas (I read part of his book, but not all). No one has argued that the land we live on is surrounded by an ocean which is impossible to navigate making it impossible to get on the other side. No one is arguing that the earth is bounded by a better land in which there was the garden of eden, they say it is bounded by ice, and no one is arguing that man originally lived on the better land until Noah crossed the ocean during the great flood and ever after men lived on the inferior land in the middle never to return. And no one is arguing that the earth was a rectangle of the shape of the Ark of the Covenant but rather they say it is a flat circle. I'm sure there are many other differences also.
-
My position? I don't have an entrenched position about flat-earth. I think it's stupid, but I readily admit that I may be the stupid one.
OHCA has become hysterical with his anger.
You do have an entrenched position - you disagree that the earth is a flat plane.
You disbelieve that the Latin Vulgate's use of the word "compass" means a flat circle, when a circle is, by its very definition, flat. You have interpreted, for yourself, that somehow "compass" means "ball."
You believe that what the Bible says is "not the Catholic position," which is quite ridiculous.
You are also continuously disregarding ALL of the other Biblical passages that refer to the nature of the earth, which correspond to the flat earth model and you are focusing completely on Isaias 40:22, which isn't even necessary.
Would you say the same about evolution, even though the Pope is promoting it? Will you say that Pope Francis is spouting the "Catholic position" even though he contradicts Scripture in the Genesis account of Creation?
-
But no one on these threads has argued for the model of Cosmas (I read part of his book, but not all). No one has argued that the land we live on is surrounded by an ocean which is impossible to navigate making it impossible to get on the other side. No one is arguing that the earth is bounded by a better land in which there was the garden of eden, they say it is bounded by ice, and no one is arguing that man originally lived on the better land until Noah crossed the ocean during the great flood and ever after men lived on the inferior land in the middle never to return. And no one is arguing that the earth was a rectangle of the shape of the Ark of the Covenant but rather they say it is a flat circle. I'm sure there are many other differences also.
It is true, there are differences of opinion that actually matter. But few answers regarding them. Personally, I am more inclined to believe Cosmas and Enoch than Eric Dubay or Rob Skiba, so the circular earth model, at least to me, is in doubt. But that earth is flat and stationary, of that there is no doubt.
-
My position? I don't have an entrenched position about flat-earth. I think it's stupid, but I readily admit that I may be the stupid one.
OHCA has become hysterical with his anger.
It's great when something like this is gratuitously tossed in.
You do have an entrenched position - you disagree that the earth is a flat plane.
Yes--I disagree. But I am not entrenched in that position. I don't care enough about science to get entrenched in hardly anything that doesn't pertain directly to the Faith. I am entrenched against Big Bang and evolution--they are lies proffering an alternative explanation to creation than the Hand of God. But it makes no difference to me whether He created earth a flat circle, a circle, a globe, or a compass, nor whether I fully understand which He created.
You, on the other hand--I am not sure that you could accept it if the Church infallibly pronounced that the earth is a globe. That is "entrenched."
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
No--they absolutely cannot. Everywhere they read "circle," they read into it a word that isn't there, i.e., "flat," to make it read "flat circle." And for that matter, they quote the KJV and conciliarist "bibles" to even get the word "circle" in some passages where it is not found in the Douay-Rheims.
mw2016 answered this and so did I. The word in scripture texts for circle and the word for ball are different, and mean different things. Just like in English. The word for circle was used in scripture texts originally. Translation to ball necessarily must be a translation based on the encroaching idea earth was a globe, because it wasn't based on the actual word used, so any translation using the word ball is necessarily a mis translation.
The King James bible is missing 6 books, so it is sometimes necessary to consider the original texts.
I don't have time to engage in this debate, but I must add this:
The Douay-Rheims Bible has been the Catholic Church's official English translation for OVER FIVE CENTURIES. The Catholic Church could never err about something like this.
And as a man who knows Latin, I'm here to tell you that every time I've compared passages in the Douay-Rheims (1800's challoner revision) to the original Latin vulgate, I always find it to be the same. The DR is a slavish, "faithful" translation of the original Latin, rather than a "beautiful", interpreted, unfaithful one.
And as a polyglot (English, Spanish, Japanese, and Latin) I know just how translations work. Sometimes it's difficult to get an exact equivalent in another language. But the DR does the best job by far. I've seen many protestant translations, and I can see how they've "interpreted" the original text, rather than simply translate it. They're guessing at its meaning, and "filling in the gaps" as it were, with their own opinions and biases.
All Protestant translations involve errors, interpretations, and sometimes even heretical interpretations of the original text.
I don't know if the Earth is a globe or a flat plane, but I'll say this: whatever it is, we don't need to resort to inaccurate, erroneous Protestant interpretations of the Bible to get to the truth about the Earth or anything else!
Good never comes from evil. Protestant "bibles" are evil. They twist and distort Scripture.
-
Could someone please point out where exactly the Bible says the earth is flat?
No--they absolutely cannot. Everywhere they read "circle," they read into it a word that isn't there, i.e., "flat," to make it read "flat circle." And for that matter, they quote the KJV and conciliarist "bibles" to even get the word "circle" in some passages where it is not found in the Douay-Rheims.
mw2016 answered this and so did I. The word in scripture texts for circle and the word for ball are different, and mean different things. Just like in English. The word for circle was used in scripture texts originally. Translation to ball necessarily must be a translation based on the encroaching idea earth was a globe, because it wasn't based on the actual word used, so any translation using the word ball is necessarily a mis translation.
The King James bible is missing 6 books, so it is sometimes necessary to consider the original texts.
I don't have time to engage in this debate, but I must add this:
The Douay-Rheims Bible has been the Catholic Church's official English translation for OVER FIVE CENTURIES. The Catholic Church could never err about something like this.
And as a man who knows Latin, I'm here to tell you that every time I've compared passages in the Douay-Rheims (1800's challoner revision) to the original Latin vulgate, I always find it to be the same. The DR is a slavish, "faithful" translation of the original Latin, rather than a "beautiful", interpreted, unfaithful one.
And as a polyglot (English, Spanish, Japanese, and Latin) I know just how translations work. Sometimes it's difficult to get an exact equivalent in another language. But the DR does the best job by far. I've seen many protestant translations, and I can see how they've "interpreted" the original text, rather than simply translate it. They're guessing at its meaning, and "filling in the gaps" as it were, with their own opinions and biases.
All Protestant translations involve errors, interpretations, and sometimes even heretical interpretations of the original text.
I don't know if the Earth is a globe or a flat plane, but I'll say this: whatever it is, we don't need to resort to inaccurate, erroneous Protestant interpretations of the Bible to get to the truth about the Earth or anything else!
Good never comes from evil. Protestant "bibles" are evil. They twist and distort Scripture.
If the Douay translates the original word for circle into globe, the translation is wrong because the word used in the original text means circle, not globe. This isn't a Protestant interpretation but the only interpretation of the original text.
-
Scripture also says: [7] And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.
So, there is a firmament, a dome above earth as scripture tells us. A dome is a dome, not another ball. Scripture again gives us a clue about the shape of the earth and with the dome above and water above that, it certainly is not a globe. When the doubt is on the translation because of the original text, but the translation also contradicts the meaning in other texts of scripture, it is easy to see, there is a problem. The answer to the problem is: consider the original texts and consider the context.
-
The original text used the word gh which means "circle,". Gh cannot mean "sphere" because of the context, since there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball." If the original word meant "sphere," specifically, translators would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So although the Douay is the best translation out there, the translation for that one word is not as accurate as it could be.
-
The original text used the word gh which means "circle,". Gh cannot mean "sphere" because of the context, since there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball." If the original word meant "sphere," specifically, translators would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. So although the Douay is the best translation out there, the translation for that one word is not as accurate as it could be.
And with your last two posts, you have surpassed mw2016 in your protestantism.
-
Eusebius of Caesarea
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a book called Preparation of the Gospel around 314 AD (Eusebius 1981, v; Mras 1954). He discusses different Greek philosophies showing how some are similar to the Bible, and how some are contrary. The following is a compilation of Greek views of the shape of the earth:
Thales and the Stoics: the earth is spherical.
Anaximander: it is like a stone pillar supporting the surfaces.
Anaximenes: like a table.
Leucippus: like a kettle-drum.
Democritus: like a disk in its extension, but hollow in the middle.
Eusebius quotes briefly from scripture to demonstrate how God created the universe. God spoke and it came into being. He quoted Isaiah 450:22b, ëo sthsas ws kamarav ton ouranon kai diateinas Ws skhnhn katoikein, which means, "who set the heaven for a canopy, and spread it out as a tent to dwell in" (Mras 1954, 384; 7:11,7). This is a direct quote from the LXX. He does not speculate on what the verse might mean.
St. Chrysostom
St. Chrysostom in Concerning the Statues quotes the following scriptures, "who hath placed the sky as a vault, and spread it out as a tent over the earth. And again, Who holdeth the circle of heaven" (Schaff 1979, 9:409). St. Chrysostom is following the LXX, but instead of writing "circle of the earth" he writes "circle of heaven" He may be interpreting the phrase to refer to heaven or thinking about the circle in Ecclesiasticus 43:12-12.
Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory of Nyssa in book two of Against Eunomius writes, "Who sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and hath meted out heaven with the span" (Schaff and Wace 1979, 5:125). Here Gregory is not quoting the LXX which says, "It is he that comprehends the circle of the earth," but from the Vulgate.
Theophilus
Theophilus writing to Autolycus following the LXX says:
The heaven, therefore, being dome-shaped covering, comprehended matter which was like a clod. And so another prophet, Isaiah by name, spoke in these words: It is God who made the heavens as a vault, and stretched them as a tent to dwell in.This heaven which we see has been called firmament, and to which half the water was taken up that it might serve for rains, and showers, and dews to mankind. And half the water was left on earth for rivers, and fountains, and seas (Schaff and Wace 1979, 2:100).
Theophilus interprets the "circle of the earth" as referring to the vault of heaven.
Novatian
Novatian in his Treatise Concerning the Trinity, following the LXX writes:
Who, according to Isaiah, 'hath meted out the heaven with a span, the earth with the hollow of His hand;' 'who looketh on the earth, and maketh it tremble; who boundeth the circle of the earth, and those that dwell in it like locusts; who hath weighed the mountains in a balance, and the groves in scales' (Ibid, 5:613).
Severianus
Severianus, bishop of Gabula wrote Six Orations on the Creation of the World. He saw the world as flat in the shape of the tabernacle which was a common early Christian view (Durham and Purrington 1983, 76). Cosmas quotes extensively from these orations.
More Protestantism, right?
-
The basic purpose of the book Christian Topography was to refute from scripture and common sense, the impious pagan beliefs that the earth was a sphere, and the center around which the heavens which were also a sphere, revolved. He also wrote against antipodes which means that people would be standing on their heads on the other side of the spherical earth.
Cosmas shaped the world through his literal interpretation of Hebrews 9:23-24 which says:
It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices that these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.
The tabernacle was a pattern of the universe.
The tabernacle is divided into two parts by means of a veil. This symbolizes the division of the universe into two worlds, an upper and lower, by means of the firmament. The table of shew-bread with its waved border represented the earth surrounded by the ocean. Since the table was twice as long as it was wide, and was place lengthwise from East to West, the earth also is a rectangular shape extending in length from East to West twice as long as it is wide. The surrounding ocean is unnavigatable, and is surrounded by another earth which is the seat of paradise, and the abode of man until the flood when Noah was carried over to this earth. McCrindle summarizes Cosmas’ shape of the world by saying:
The heavens come down to us in four walls, which, at their lower sides, are welded to the four sides of the earth beyond the ocean, each to each. The upper side of the northern wall, at the summit of heaven, curves round and over, till it unites with the upper side of the southern wall, and thus forms, in the shape of an oblong vault, the canopy of heaven, which Cosmas likens to the vaulted roof of a bathroom. This vast rectangular hall is divided at the middle into two stories by the firmament, which this serves as a ceiling for the lower story and a floor for the upper. The lower story is this world, where men and angels have their abode until the resurrection, and the story above is heaven-the place of the future state (McCrindle 1897, xvi).
More "Protestant" interpretations from a Catholic, Cosmas Indiocopleustes, who has been considered by all of Christendom to to be an authority on the form of the earth.
-
More Protestantism, right?
Certainly not nearly as much so as your criticism of the Douay-Rheims and your preference for the KJV.
-
More Protestantism, right?
Certainly not nearly as much so as your criticism of the Douay-Rheims and your preference for the KJV.
I'm not criticizing the Douay Rheims. It is the translation of choice for me. But with the sneaking arm of Satan reaching in at every turn, who am I to reject what is false, no matter where it comes from? More recently, I had to accept that a Pope could be in error to the degree Francis is. That our hierarchy are in apostasy and virtually hate God, that the laity are useful idiots in a heartbreaking way. But just like I refuse to deny that Francis is destroying the Church in a most diligent way, and do not completely ascent to his shenanigans simply because he's in possession of the papacy, I also deny that it is impossible that a translation may be in error. Especially when the error is obvious, promotes the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, the Freemasons and the powers that be.
-
If the Douay translates the original word for circle into globe, the translation is wrong because the word used in the original text means circle, not globe. This isn't a Protestant interpretation but the only interpretation of the original text.
Agreed.
I have no explanation for whatever is going on with this particular passage in the Douay-Rheims (Challoner or Haydock).
All I know is that gyrum (Latin Vulgate) and compass (1582 Douay) do not mean "globe" in any language. It is a simple thing to look up the definition of those words.
-
The basic purpose of the book Christian Topography was to refute the impious pagan beliefs that the earth was a sphere.
Anyone who has a problem with the idea that the earth might really be flat needs to re-read the above and let that statement SINK IN.
OHCA is busily flinging around accusations of "Protestant interpretation" of Scripture, all the while himself adhering to an IMPIOUS PAGAN BELIEF.
Think, man, THINK!
-
I see you held a somewhat more reasonable position a mere 6 weeks ago:
The flat geocentric earth is the Catholic position, heliocentrism is a massive pagan lie.
Heliocentrism = anti-catholic. TRUE
Geocentrism = catholic. TRUE
Flat earth Geocentrism = catholic. as yet, unproven THEORY!!
I'm all for challenging our modern and pagan worldview, but to say that the 'flat earth' is THE CATHOLIC POSITION is just not true. It's a theory. And if y'all keep proclaiming that it's a dogmatic truth, you're like bizzaro-Galileo - claiming a scientific theory is fact.
Maybe it is a fact? Maybe there is a scientist out there that can explain it? But y'all haven't come close on this thread, and that's fine. At least admit your limitations.
At a great disadvantage for lack of equipment to verify, we do have terrible limitations. However, geocentricism has always included flat earth. Only since NASA and this century have ppl continued the false notion that earth is a globe hanging in space. The notion is so absurd, who could examine it with any criticism and still hold it? What makes the water curve? What makes it stay on the ball? Why can't curvature ever be demonstrated in the real world? Why do railroad engineers lay track never allowing for earth curve? Why did NASA fake all the earth spinning videos? Why the all the CGI trickery with pasted on globes to moon shots proven added with Photo Shop? Why fake moon landings? Why is NASA bleeding us dry while providing nothing but fake pictures of space? Why is NASA promoting evolution using fake globe pictures, promoting atheism, millions year old earth and the Big Bang?
The following is not proof, but it is something to think about...
Isn't a level foundation naturally more reasonable?
These are all to greater or less degree dishonest in their approach...
Curve balls
Grading on the curve
Circular thinking
Relative thinking
Relativity
Relativism
Modernism
Talking in circles
Round about (out of your way)
As compared to:
Level headed
Level playing field
On the level
Leveled out
There is nothing to fear in considering the legitimacy of a flat earth. We do not have all the answers, for sure. But one ought not dismiss this out of hand without checking it in regards to every aspect of life and Church. Foundation is critical.
"Only since NASA and this century have ppl continued the false notion that earth is a globe hanging in space. The notion is so absurd, who could examine it with any criticism and still hold it?"
May be absurd. But I don't doubt the power of God to do it. Isn't this flat plane suspended over the great depth in your flat earth hypothesis?
In any event, your tone was more tempered and persuasive 6 weeks ago.
"There is nothing to fear in considering the legitimacy of a flat earth. We do not have all the answers, for sure."
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
-
If the Douay translates the original word for circle into globe, the translation is wrong because the word used in the original text means circle, not globe. This isn't a Protestant interpretation but the only interpretation of the original text.
I have no explanation for whatever is going on with this particular passage in the Douay-Rheims (Challoner or Haydock).
Such an explanation is beyond your meager intelligence to contemplate and proffer, and so far beyond your pay grade that it is in the--can we say it--the next stratosphere.
-
If the Douay translates the original word for circle into globe, the translation is wrong because the word used in the original text means circle, not globe. This isn't a Protestant interpretation but the only interpretation of the original text.
I have no explanation for whatever is going on with this particular passage in the Douay-Rheims (Challoner or Haydock).
Perhaps you should be in charge of convincing the protestants that the earth is flat.
-
I haven't read, nor have I followed at all, this 86 page thread (nor do I intend to).
Which passage of Scripture are we talking about? I can look it up in the original Latin Vulgate.
I know the Psalms (which I used to pray several times a day, for 3 1/2 years during my time at a TRAD SEMINARY, and I understood most of what I was chanting because I completed the THREE YEAR LATIN PROGRAM) mention "orbis terrarum".
Is "orbis" the word we're talking about?
I know that Kyrie XI is called "Orbis Factor".
Wikipedia has this entry for "orbis":
Noun[edit]
orbis m ?(genitive orbis); third declension
circle, ring
a circular motion
a rotation
a disc or disc-shaped object
the Earth, the world, the globe [often written as orbis terrarum]
totus orbis terrarum
the whole wide world
But since Wikipedia might be considered "tainted" or biased by many, let's get some other opinions:
latin english dictionary JM Latin English Dictionary
N M
circle; territory/region; sphere; [orbis terrarum => world/(circle of lands)]
latin english dictionary Latin English Dictionary (AZAD)
circle, orb, ring, disk, orbit, coil/ round / rotation.
latin english dictionary Latin-English Online Dictionary
circle, orb, ring, disk, orbit
-
Which passage of Scripture are we talking about? I can look it up in the original Latin Vulgate.
Is "orbis" the word we're talking about?
No, it's not "orbis" we've been arguing about.
We've been arguing about "gyrum" in Isaias 40:22.
My source was drbo.org, an online version of the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate.
DR: It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth,
LV: Qui sedet super gyrum terrae,
We know terrae means earth, the argument is that gyrum does NOT mean globe. Gyrum means circle, circuit, to go around, to compass, to go about, ring, etc.
A flat earth proponent on the thread provided an online 1582/1610 Douay-Rheims which has the correct wording of the passage, which is different than the drbo.org Douay-Rheims and different than both of my printed Douay-Rheims Bibles.
Link:
https://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n1511/mode/1up
"He that sitteth upon the compass of the earth..."
Compass also means circle, circuit, to go around, to go about etc.
The word gyrum appears again in Proverbs 8:27 and in that case it is properly translated as compass, and not as "globe."
-
I know the Psalms (which I used to pray several times a day, for 3 1/2 years during my time at a TRAD SEMINARY, and I understood most of what I was chanting because I completed the THREE YEAR LATIN PROGRAM) mention "orbis terrarum".
I know that Kyrie XI is called "Orbis Factor".
Wikipedia has this entry for "orbis":
Noun[edit]
orbis m ?(genitive orbis); third declension
circle, ring
a circular motion
a rotation
a disc or disc-shaped object
the Earth, the world, the globe [often written as orbis terrarum]
totus orbis terrarum
the whole wide world
But since Wikipedia might be considered "tainted" or biased by many, let's get some other opinions:
latin english dictionary JM Latin English Dictionary
N M
circle; territory/region; sphere; [orbis terrarum => world/(circle of lands)]
latin english dictionary Latin English Dictionary (AZAD)
circle, orb, ring, disk, orbit, coil/ round / rotation.
latin english dictionary Latin-English Online Dictionary
circle, orb, ring, disk, orbit
Also, thank you for mentioning that the Psalms use the word orbis, yet another place where the Bible calls His Creation a:
circle
ring
disc
-
Here is the link to the Proverbs 8:27 passage where the word gyro is correctly translated to "compass":
https://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n1303/mode/2up
"When with a certain law and circuit he compassed the depths,"
Here is the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims English from drbo.org:
DR: When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths:
LV: Quando praeparabat caelos, aderam; quando certa lege et gyro vallabat abyssos;
Note it does not say "globe."
Here's the photo:
-
Some useful info about drbo.org:
http://www.drbo.org/about.htm
By The Publisher
The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version
With revisions and footnotes (in the text in italics) by Bishop Richard Challoner, 1749-52,
Taken from a hardcopy of the 1899 Edition by the John Murphy Company
IMPRIMATUR: James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899.
The Latin Vulgate (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) Clementine Version
Translation from Greek and other languages into Latin by Saint Jerome, about 382 A.D.
-
Which passage of Scripture are we talking about? I can look it up in the original Latin Vulgate.
Is "orbis" the word we're talking about?
No, it's not "orbis" we've been arguing about.
We've been arguing about "gyrum" in Isaias 40:22.
My source was drbo.org, an online version of the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate.
DR: It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth,
LV: Qui sedet super gyrum terrae,
We know terrae means earth, the argument is that gyrum does NOT mean globe. Gyrum means circle, circuit, to go around, to compass, to go about, ring, etc.
A flat earth proponent on the thread provided an online 1582/1610 Douay-Rheims which has the correct wording of the passage, which is different than the drbo.org Douay-Rheims and different than both of my printed Douay-Rheims Bibles.
Link:
https://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n1511/mode/1up
"He that sitteth upon the compass of the earth..."
Compass also means circle, circuit, to go around, to go about etc.
The word gyrum appears again in Proverbs 8:27 and in that case it is properly translated as compass, and not as "globe."
Why is it that when I read your musings I can picture you on the news being interviewed at the scene of a tornado describing how it sounded without your dentures in...
-
blah blah blah...
Why is it that when I read your musings I can picture you on the news being interviewed at the scene of a tornado describing how it sounded without your dentures in...
:laugh1:
That really makes for a powerful picture!!
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fcurlytraveller.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2FCelebs-With-No-Teeth-funny-celebrity-moments-34438199-500-447.jpg%3Fresize%3D500%252C447&sp=0dc741d3cd6a8df92e4901b6296e7c98)
-
.
--------- This was 17 days ago ------------
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=680#p3)
Still at it, eh?
Please provide reference to a flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
And you still have not provided any reasonable response (merely invective, impudence and malice).
So there is no flat-earther who can make these predictions, and the reason is because anyone with the relevant knowledge and skills to make the astronomical calculations associated with predictions of solar eclipses or meteor showers does so with knowledge that the earth is spherical and that's how the calculations are made, for the calculations cannot be made when one presumes the earth is flat.
Case closed.
Apparently you two clowns (happenby and mw2016) are of bad will.
You have not given any "scientific proof earth is not a globe" even though that's the title of the thread.
Not one shred of evidence for "scientific proof" but the pages go on and on.
Never mind that science itself is not in the business of proving anything.
So you have no idea what you're talking about but you keep on talking anyway.
Pathetic.
-
Now we're cookin' with gas!
-
.
--------- This was 17 days ago ------------
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=680#p3)
Still at it, eh?
Please provide reference to a flat-earther who can predict solar eclipses or meteor showers.
And you still have not provided any reasonable response (merely invective, impudence and malice).
So there is no flat-earther who can make these predictions, and the reason is because anyone with the relevant knowledge and skills to make the astronomical calculations associated with predictions of solar eclipses or meteor showers does so with knowledge that the earth is spherical and that's how the calculations are made, for the calculations cannot be made when one presumes the earth is flat.
Case closed.
Apparently you two clowns (happenby and mw2016) are of bad will.
You have not given any "scientific proof earth is not a globe" even though that's the title of the thread.
Not one shred of evidence for "scientific proof" but the pages go on and on.
Never mind that science itself is not in the business of proving anything.
So you have no idea what you're talking about but you keep on talking anyway.
Pathetic.
Any flat earther can predict eclipses and meteor showers because they are predictable in and of themselves.
-
Okay, so name one flat-earther who can predict them.
You can't because there aren't any who know how to do it.
They don't believe it's possible to predict them, just like you don't believe that meteors are visible.
-
So there is no flat-earther who can make these predictions, and the reason is because anyone with the relevant knowledge and skills to make the astronomical calculations associated with predictions of solar eclipses or meteor showers does so with knowledge that the earth is spherical and that's how the calculations are made, for the calculations cannot be made when one presumes the earth is flat.
Case closed.
Thanks for displaying your ignorance once again.
All the ancient cultures were able to make eclipse predictions, and they all knew the earth to be FLAT - none of them thought the earth was round.
We can't even make a precise eclipse prediction in present day, only approximations. Did you know there is an eclipse "season"? I'll bet not.
-
Okay, so name one flat-earther who can predict them.
You can't because there aren't any who know how to do it.
They don't believe it's possible to predict them, just like you don't believe that meteors are visible.
That's ridiculous. Even you can predict them given the formula. Oh, yes, there is a formula.
-
Okay, so name one flat-earther who can predict them.
You can't because there aren't any who know how to do it.
They don't believe it's possible to predict them, just like you don't believe that meteors are visible.
That's ridiculous. Even you can predict them given the formula. Oh, yes, there is a formula.
So you can't answer the question (you can't provide even one name). Why am I not surprised?
Please clarify (if you can). To what formula are you referring?
Provide the formula ostensibly derived from a standpoint of "flat-earthism" as a precept.
If flat-earthism does not provide the basis of any such formula, why would you believe the formula?
-
So there is no flat-earther who can make these predictions, and the reason is because anyone with the relevant knowledge and skills to make the astronomical calculations associated with predictions of solar eclipses or meteor showers does so with knowledge that the earth is spherical and that's how the calculations are made, for the calculations cannot be made when one presumes the earth is flat.
Case closed.
Thanks for displaying your ignorance once again.
All the ancient cultures were able to make eclipse predictions, and they all knew the earth to be FLAT - none of them thought the earth was round.
We can't even make a precise eclipse prediction in present day, only approximations. Did you know there is an eclipse "season"? I'll bet not.
Thank you for displaying your predictable truculence. Your specious denigration of simple logic is amazing.
-
Regarding "flat earth":
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/pPb3sm-FKq8[/youtube]
-
[mw2016] wrote on the geocentrism poll thread that really belongs here not on that thread:
Flat earth geocentrism is as the Early Church Fathers saw it and as scripture describes earth, the modern version is fraught with nonsense. So, no...we aren't going anywhere. Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof. Like useful idiots, modern geocentrists think they've seen the ball earth but they've seen nothing more than CGI cartoons. That is the ONLY reason they think earth is a ball because they have no other proof. Modern geocentrists refuse to demonstrate proof of the curve they think they see in pictures. Until they do, there is no need for further discussion because flat earthers have proven no curve time and time and time again. Scripture backs us up. Talk is cheap. Empirical proof wins.
'Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof.'
‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are often held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common of these concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief however, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists [should] prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to those for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.’ --- Satoshi Kanazawa’s The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008.
So what evidence do I base a global earth on? I have not been on top of Mount Everest where one should see the ice-wall that prevented Noah's Flood from going over the edges. Accordingly I had to look elsewhere.
My evidence for a global earth came from the science of godesy (Earth measurement on a large scale).
‘The period from Eratosthenes to Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy. A new ellipsoidal era was begun by Sir Isaac Newton and Christiaan 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.’ ---Encyclopaedia Britannica, chapter: Earth, p.535.
‘Experimental evidence supporting this idea [that the earth is shaped like an orange] came in 1672 as a result of a French expedition to Guiana. It is possible to determine whether or not the earth is an oblate spheroid by measuring the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude differences at two places along the meridian (the ellipse passing through the Poles) at different latitudes, which means at different distances from the Equator.’
Domenico Cassini, [Geocentrist astronomer and surveyor. Cassini’s talent as a surveyor was also well known. In 1657 he was asked by none other than Pope Alexander VII to resolve a dispute regarding the flow of the River Reno between Bologna and Ferrara that was causing flooding. For the next six years Cassini was occupied with similar work around the Papal States]
Cassini wanted to check the measurements for himself. King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the French Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere.The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.
Then, in 1732 Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis joined Newton’s supporters to be followed by the prominent scientist Clairout. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. In 1735, financed by King Louis XV, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition - after the conditions nearly killed them - completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres long, they ‘found’ their bulge.
Ten years later, after measuring two baselines, one 12.2 and 10.3 kilometres (7.6 and 6.4 miles), La Condamine and his group emerged from the Amazon with their mission accomplished, they too found their curve of the earth.
Ten years later, after measuring two baselines, one 12.2 and 10.3 kilometres (7.6 and 6.4 miles), La Condamine and his group emerged from the Amazon with their mission accomplished, they too found their curve of the earth.
To my knowledge godesy never found a flat-earth. Indeed which point along the ice-wall is the south pole, necessary for godesy measurements. To my knowledge the south pope and north pole are found exactly where man expected to find them on a global earth.
Until then, I will go with the scientific evidence.
-
It is precisely scientific evidence that shows us that the earth is flat.
Flat earthers and round earthers agree on the same figure for the circuмference of the earth : 25000 miles. All we say is that if the earth is round then it necessarily should by the SCIENCE do certain things, like curve. Scientifically, it does not, because thanks to modern technology we can see and zoom in on items that should be below that curve. Round earthers give no scientific response to that, and therefore the theory of a 25000 mile ball earth is necessarily false.
Here again, I direct readers to just one video.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/S4oT2EbDONs[/youtube]
Once you have viewed this type in "ship horizon flat earth" (or similar) on youtube and you will get many more.
-
‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are often held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common of these concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief however, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists [should] prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to those for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.’ --- Satoshi Kanazawa’s The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008.
So what evidence do I base a global earth on? I have not been on top of Mount Everest where one should see the ice-wall that prevented Noah's Flood from going over the edges. Accordingly I had to look elsewhere.
My evidence for a global earth came from the science of godesy (Earth measurement on a large scale).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You just said there is no proof in science, only math and logic. Even given that were true, flat earth wins over the illogical claim that earth is round because round earth cannot be proven mathematically, logically, nor in reality. Where's that ship said gone down below the horizon? Its visible ON the horizon. Now along with the math that necessarily says a ship miles out should be below the horizon, I'll prove there is also scientific proof that earth is not a globe. The scientific proof: the ship is visible when it should be around the bend. That sir, is empirical proof. No doubt logic, truth, reality and all other godly things are all just a tick beyond you because you summarily dismiss them when you choose. They remain nonetheless.
-
Psalm 95:10, in St. Jerome's translation, uses the word orbis (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dorbis) (globe, circle, round) when referring to the earth. There are other instances too.
Here's the better, original Douay translation (the Challoner corruption omits "round"):... he hath corrected the round world which shall not be moved: ...
Interestingly, this verse both denies flat-earthism and affirms geostaticism.
(cf. this (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52745/1787) for more info on the other controversial part of this verse)
-
Psalm 95:10, in St. Jerome's translation, uses the word orbis (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dorbis) (globe, circle, round) when referring to the earth. There are other instances too.
Here's the better, original Douay translation (the Challoner corruption omits "round"):... he hath corrected the round world which shall not be moved: ...
Interestingly, this verse both denies flat-earthism and affirms geostaticism.
(cf. this (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52745/1787) for more info on the other controversial part of this verse)
Actually it does not deny the flat earth, but rather the contrary.
The flat earth is generally represented as a circle. Just do a search for flat earth maps in google.
"Geostaticism" and the flat earth are not contradictory principles.
There's not much point discussing vulgar tongue translations of Sacred Scripture. The Church relies on the Vulgate in any disputes, and ultimately on the original Greek and Hebrew.
-
In the following post cassini references five periods in history during which the scientific method (i.e., science) was used to substantiate the theory that the earth is approximately spherical (spheroid).
I don't say "a sphere" because that is not precisely true. I don't say "pear-shaped" because flat-earthers like to joke about how planet earth is said to look like a pear. Below, cassini prefers "orange shaped" which makes more sense, but in my experience oranges can vary from very spherical to egg-shaped and everything in between. In fact, some of the best tasting oranges are very round, or pointed at the top, or flat at the top and/or bottom. So "orange shaped" can be ambivalent at best.
Also, cassini is so gracious as to include mention of how science is not in the business of proving anything, unlike mathematics, geometry and logic, which deal in provable theorems; but instead, science uses observed phenomena and carefully obtained measurements to support and/or defend various theories (not theorems). The scientific method begins with hypothesis, continues with experimental testing of the hypothesis, and after numerous or "sufficient" consistent repeatable results, a theory (not a theorem) is formed, after which further testing challenges the theory. As to how many challenges or how many years are necessary to arrive at a consensus of qualified opinion about that theory, there is not universal agreement, however.
Not mentioned, perhaps because it's outside the scope of this topic, is that there persists heated debate over whether "natural law" can ever be scientifically determined, because this implies that the "law of gravity" is a misnomer, and the "law of conservation of energy" cannot be certain, and even the "first, second and third laws of thermodynamics" are not carved in stone, so to speak. For example, the so-called law of conservation of energy states that neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed. But Catholics are taught from childhood that God created everything, which includes energy and matter, e.g., the material universe. And furthermore, it is Catholic theology that God has the power to create material things at will or to destroy the material universe (the "world") if He chooses to do so.
It is practically universal Catholic doctrine that the time shall come when God re-makes His creation, making all things new, that is, as it was in the Garden of Eden, or perhaps even better than that.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=860&#p7)
[mw2016] wrote on the geocentrism poll thread that really belongs here not on that thread:
Flat earth geocentrism is as the Early Church Fathers saw it and as scripture describes earth, the modern version is fraught with nonsense. So, no...we aren't going anywhere. Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof. Like useful idiots, modern geocentrists think they've seen the ball earth but they've seen nothing more than CGI cartoons. That is the ONLY reason they think earth is a ball because they have no other proof. Modern geocentrists refuse to demonstrate proof of the curve they think they see in pictures. Until they do, there is no need for further discussion because flat earthers have proven no curve time and time and time again. Scripture backs us up. Talk is cheap. Empirical proof wins.
'Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof.'
‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are often held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common of these concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief however, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists [should] prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to those for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.’ --- Satoshi Kanazawa’s The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008.
So what evidence do I base a global earth on? I have not been on top of Mount Everest where one should see the ice-wall that prevented Noah's Flood from going over the edges. Accordingly I had to look elsewhere.
My evidence for a global earth came from the science of godesy (Earth measurement on a large scale).
‘The period [1,876 years duration] from Eratosthenes [Greek mathematician, d. 194 B.C.] to Picard [French astronomer and priest, Jean-Félix Picard, d. 1682 A.D.] can be called the spherical era of geodesy. A new ellipsoidal era was begun by Sir Isaac Newton and Christiaan 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.’ ---Encyclopaedia Britannica, chapter: Earth, p.535.
‘Experimental evidence supporting this idea [that the earth is shaped like an orange] came in 1672 as a result of a French expedition to Guiana. It is possible to determine whether or not the earth is an oblate spheroid by measuring the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude differences at two places along the meridian (the ellipse passing through the Poles) at different latitudes, which means at different distances from the Equator.’
Domenico Cassini, [Geocentrist astronomer and surveyor. Cassini’s talent as a surveyor was also well known. In 1657 he was asked by none other than Pope Alexander VII to resolve a dispute regarding the flow of the River Reno between Bologna and Ferrara that was causing flooding. For the next six years Cassini was occupied with similar work around the Papal States]
Cassini wanted to check the measurements for himself. King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the French Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere. The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.
Then, in 1732 Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis joined Newton’s supporters to be followed by the prominent scientist Clairout. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. In 1735, financed by King Louis XV, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition - after the conditions nearly killed them - completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres long, they ‘found’ their bulge.
Ten years later, after measuring two baselines, one 12.2 and 10.3 kilometres (7.6 and 6.4 miles), La Condamine and his group emerged from the Amazon with their mission accomplished, they too found their curve of the earth.
To my knowledge godesy never found a flat-earth. Indeed which point along the ice-wall is the south pole, necessary for godesy measurements[?] To my knowledge the south pope and north pole are found exactly where man expected to find them on a global earth.
Until then, I will go with the scientific evidence.
Thank you, cassini, for a reliably educated post. Your recondite contribution is appreciated.
.
.
.
Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself I'm going to repeat myself. In reply to the following,
[mw2016] wrote on the geocentrism poll thread that really belongs here not on that thread:
Flat earth geocentrism is as the Early Church Fathers saw it and as scripture describes earth, the modern version is fraught with nonsense. So, no...we aren't going anywhere. Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof. Like useful idiots, modern geocentrists think they've seen the ball earth but they've seen nothing more than CGI cartoons. That is the ONLY reason they think earth is a ball because they have no other proof. Modern geocentrists refuse to demonstrate proof of the curve they think they see in pictures. Until they do, there is no need for further discussion because flat earthers have proven no curve time and time and time again. Scripture backs us up. Talk is cheap. Empirical proof wins.
I have to say what I said before, that I don't "think" I've "seen the ball earth," I know I've seen with my own eyes the immediate consequence of the earth's curvature, using surveying equipment perched on top of Mount Whitney, CA, at 14,500 ft. elev. While I will admit that isn't "proof of a ball earth," it is a whole lot more SUPPORT for the theory of the earth's curvature than it is evidence AGAINST it.
It is obviously not "nothing but CGI cartoons." There is a difference between seeing the reality first hand with your own two eyes and looking at a CGI cartoon.
Flat-earthers are so entirely dug-in to their pet project that even if you were to take them to a promontory 50,000 (fifty thousand) miles high to show them what the earth looks like they would not believe their eyes. I know this to be factual, because immediately after cassini posted the nice job he did, above, "irt" (who only has 8 posts at CI but has a much greater ego) made the following post:
It is precisely scientific evidence that shows us that the earth is flat.
Flat earthers and round earthers agree on the same figure for the circuмference of the earth : 25000 miles. All we say is that if the earth is round then it necessarily should by the SCIENCE do certain things, like curve. Scientifically, it does not, because thanks to modern technology we can see and zoom in on items that should be below that curve. Round earthers give no scientific response to that, and therefore the theory of a 25000 mile ball earth is necessarily false.
Here again, I direct readers to just one video.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/S4oT2EbDONs[/youtube]
Once you have viewed this type in "ship horizon flat earth" (or similar) on youtube and you will get many more.
The fact is, that flat-earthers and spheroid earthers do not agree on the same figure for the circuмference of the earth, "25,000 miles," as irt erroneously states. I guess irt doesn't know much about what flat-earthers claim, even if he thinks he is one. Flat-earthers claim that's the distance around the north pole at the equator, but they say the circuмference of the ice-shelf at the furthest distance from so-called north is over 60,000 miles.
The video posted is chock-full of errors. The camera is obviously 3 feet above the sand, but the author ignores the 10 feet that this sand is manifestly above the water level. You can easily see this by looking at the height of a surfer standing on his surfboard: his head is a little more than halfway to the horizon level, and he's about 6 ft above mean sea level riding a wave (0:18). Also he claims that the "swell" should obscure something at a distance, but the ocean shown has a swell of only a few inches, not "5 feet" as he claims. Swell is measured from the apex to the nadir and the apex is only halfway above mean sea level referenced by "swell." So this means a 5' swell accounts AT MOST for only 30" of obstruction (2-1/2 feet). I have scuba dived off the coast of Santa Barbara, so I am familiar with the vicinity. When you look at the Channel Islands with binoculars, you can only see the ones closest to the coastline of California, because the ones further out are past the curvature of the earth and the horizon line at sea level is too high. You can't see San Clemente Island from Santa Barbara, for example, because it's beyond the curvature of the earth. You have to go out to sea about 20 miles before you can see San Clemente Is. or San Nicholas Is.
(http://www.marinasailing.com/images/channel_islands_map.jpg)
link[/url]]
Channel Islands National Park and Marine Sanctuary is comprised of five Channel Islands along the Santa Barbara Channel and their ocean environment. From north to south, the islands are San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara. Close to the California mainland and only a short trip away from Los Angeles, the park’s five islands provide a delightful break from the hustle and bustle of urban life.
Also, when you look at the ones closest, like Catalina (not technically a Channel Island, but it's 22 miles from Long Beach), you can't see any of the features close to the water, such as the Casino at Avalon, which is about 60 feet tall, regardless of how much magnification you use. I have tried to see the Casino using a Celestron telescope at 300 power and NO DICE. All you can see is some of the houses that are on the hillside above Avalon, about 300 feet above sea level.
At minute 3:00 - 3:38 the author compares two images of the distant island (he says "Anacapa" but it looks more like Santa Cruz), one from 13 feet above sea level (which he erroneously says is 3 feet) to 560 feet elevation (but he doesn't say how he arrived at that figure), and he deliberately obscures the bottom half of the island shore line to make it look more like the lower view.
The second half of the video is a waste of time because he goes down to water's edge and jiggles the camera around as if to make you sea-sick, while most of the distant view is obscured by the little waves of less than 2 feet tall, so you can't see much. But the taller parts of the island which ARE visible he seems to be trying to ignore because he makes no mention of them nor does he bother to keep the camera still while they're in view.
-
Before posting a silly video about the Channel Islands made by an uniformed person with a camera, irt ought to take a trip to the the Santa Cruz Island Visitors Center, Channel Islands National Park, CA, and see for himself how the various islands off the coast are partially visible or not visible at all due to the curvature of the earth.
(https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/b9/fc/d5/inside-the-santa-cruz.jpg)
-
Psalm 95:10, in St. Jerome's translation, uses the word orbis (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dorbis) (globe, circle, round) when referring to the earth. There are other instances too.
Here's the better, original Douay translation (the Challoner corruption omits "round"):... he hath corrected the round world which shall not be moved: ...
Interestingly, this verse both denies flat-earthism and affirms geostaticism.
(cf. this (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52745/1787) for more info on the other controversial part of this verse)
The problem with this is that not only are there other reasons to believe earth is flat: scripture references, Church history, consensus of the Early Church Fathers and other notable Catholics like Cosmas of Indiocplestes, but the science, math and experiments also prove otherwise. Besides all this, the modern version of heliocentrism promoted by NASA and atheist scientists like Keplar, Newton, and Einstein show a concerted effort to deny, obfuscate and otherwise lie about the motion of the earth and to bury truth about science in a pile of manure.
-
In the following post cassini references five periods in history during which the scientific method (i.e., science) was used to substantiate the theory that the earth is approximately spherical (spheroid).
I don't say "a sphere" because that is not precisely true. I don't say "pear-shaped" because flat-earthers like to joke about how planet earth is said to look like a pear. Below, cassini prefers "orange shaped" which makes more sense, but in my experience oranges can vary from very spherical to egg-shaped and everything in between. In fact, some of the best tasting oranges are very round, or pointed at the top, or flat at the top and/or bottom. So "orange shaped" can be ambivalent at best.
Also, cassini is so gracious as to include mention of how science is not in the business of proving anything, unlike mathematics, geometry and logic, which deal in provable theorems; but instead, science uses observed phenomena and carefully obtained measurements to support and/or defend various theories (not theorems). The scientific method begins with hypothesis, continues with experimental testing of the hypothesis, and after numerous or "sufficient" consistent repeatable results, a theory (not a theorem) is formed, after which further testing challenges the theory. As to how many challenges or how many years are necessary to arrive at a consensus of qualified opinion about that theory, there is not universal agreement, however.
Not mentioned, perhaps because it's outside the scope of this topic, is that there persists heated debate over whether "natural law" can ever be scientifically determined, because this implies that the "law of gravity" is a misnomer, and the "law of conservation of energy" cannot be certain, and even the "first, second and third laws of thermodynamics" are not carved in stone, so to speak. For example, the so-called law of conservation of energy states that neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed. But Catholics are taught from childhood that God created everything, which includes energy and matter, e.g., the material universe. And furthermore, it is Catholic theology that God has the power to create material things at will or to destroy the material universe (the "world") if He chooses to do so.
It is practically universal Catholic doctrine that the time shall come when God re-makes His creation, making all things new, that is, as it was in the Garden of Eden, or perhaps even better than that.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=860&#p7)
[mw2016] wrote on the geocentrism poll thread that really belongs here not on that thread:
Flat earth geocentrism is as the Early Church Fathers saw it and as scripture describes earth, the modern version is fraught with nonsense. So, no...we aren't going anywhere. Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof. Like useful idiots, modern geocentrists think they've seen the ball earth but they've seen nothing more than CGI cartoons. That is the ONLY reason they think earth is a ball because they have no other proof. Modern geocentrists refuse to demonstrate proof of the curve they think they see in pictures. Until they do, there is no need for further discussion because flat earthers have proven no curve time and time and time again. Scripture backs us up. Talk is cheap. Empirical proof wins.
'Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof.'
‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are often held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common of these concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief however, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists [should] prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to those for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.’ --- Satoshi Kanazawa’s The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008.
So what evidence do I base a global earth on? I have not been on top of Mount Everest where one should see the ice-wall that prevented Noah's Flood from going over the edges. Accordingly I had to look elsewhere.
My evidence for a global earth came from the science of godesy (Earth measurement on a large scale).
‘The period [1,876 years duration] from Eratosthenes [Greek mathematician, d. 194 B.C.] to Picard [French astronomer and priest, Jean-Félix Picard, d. 1682 A.D.] can be called the spherical era of geodesy. A new ellipsoidal era was begun by Sir Isaac Newton and Christiaan 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.’ ---Encyclopaedia Britannica, chapter: Earth, p.535.
‘Experimental evidence supporting this idea [that the earth is shaped like an orange] came in 1672 as a result of a French expedition to Guiana. It is possible to determine whether or not the earth is an oblate spheroid by measuring the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude differences at two places along the meridian (the ellipse passing through the Poles) at different latitudes, which means at different distances from the Equator.’
Domenico Cassini, [Geocentrist astronomer and surveyor. Cassini’s talent as a surveyor was also well known. In 1657 he was asked by none other than Pope Alexander VII to resolve a dispute regarding the flow of the River Reno between Bologna and Ferrara that was causing flooding. For the next six years Cassini was occupied with similar work around the Papal States]
Cassini wanted to check the measurements for himself. King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the French Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere. The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.
Then, in 1732 Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis joined Newton’s supporters to be followed by the prominent scientist Clairout. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. In 1735, financed by King Louis XV, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition - after the conditions nearly killed them - completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres long, they ‘found’ their bulge.
Ten years later, after measuring two baselines, one 12.2 and 10.3 kilometres (7.6 and 6.4 miles), La Condamine and his group emerged from the Amazon with their mission accomplished, they too found their curve of the earth.
To my knowledge godesy never found a flat-earth. Indeed which point along the ice-wall is the south pole, necessary for godesy measurements[?] To my knowledge the south pope and north pole are found exactly where man expected to find them on a global earth.
Until then, I will go with the scientific evidence.
Thank you, cassini, for a reliably educated post. Your recondite contribution is appreciated.
.
.
.
Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself I'm going to repeat myself. In reply to the following,
[mw2016] wrote on the geocentrism poll thread that really belongs here not on that thread:
Flat earth geocentrism is as the Early Church Fathers saw it and as scripture describes earth, the modern version is fraught with nonsense. So, no...we aren't going anywhere. Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof. Like useful idiots, modern geocentrists think they've seen the ball earth but they've seen nothing more than CGI cartoons. That is the ONLY reason they think earth is a ball because they have no other proof. Modern geocentrists refuse to demonstrate proof of the curve they think they see in pictures. Until they do, there is no need for further discussion because flat earthers have proven no curve time and time and time again. Scripture backs us up. Talk is cheap. Empirical proof wins.
I have to say what I said before, that I don't "think" I've "seen the ball earth," I know I've seen with my own eyes the immediate consequence of the earth's curvature, using surveying equipment perched on top of Mount Whitney, CA, at 14,500 ft. elev. While I will admit that isn't "proof of a ball earth," it is a whole lot more SUPPORT for the theory of the earth's curvature than it is evidence AGAINST it.
It is obviously not "nothing but CGI cartoons." There is a difference between seeing the reality first hand with your own two eyes and looking at a CGI cartoon.
Flat-earthers are so entirely dug-in to their pet project that even if you were to take them to a promontory 50,000 (fifty thousand) miles high to show them what the earth looks like they would not believe their eyes. I know this to be factual, because immediately after cassini posted the nice job he did, above, "irt" (who only has 8 posts at CI but has a much greater ego) made the following post:
It is precisely scientific evidence that shows us that the earth is flat.
Flat earthers and round earthers agree on the same figure for the circuмference of the earth : 25000 miles. All we say is that if the earth is round then it necessarily should by the SCIENCE do certain things, like curve. Scientifically, it does not, because thanks to modern technology we can see and zoom in on items that should be below that curve. Round earthers give no scientific response to that, and therefore the theory of a 25000 mile ball earth is necessarily false.
Here again, I direct readers to just one video.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/S4oT2EbDONs[/youtube]
Once you have viewed this type in "ship horizon flat earth" (or similar) on youtube and you will get many more.
The fact is, that flat-earthers and spheroid earthers do not agree on the same figure for the circuмference of the earth, "25,000 miles," as irt erroneously states. I guess irt doesn't know much about what flat-earthers claim, even if he thinks he is one. Flat-earthers claim that's the distance around the north pole at the equator, but they say the circuмference of the ice-shelf at the furthest distance from so-called north is over 60,000 miles.
The video posted is chock-full of errors. The camera is obviously 3 feet above the sand, but the author ignores the 10 feet that this sand is manifestly above the water level. You can easily see this by looking at the height of a surfer standing on his surfboard: his head is a little more than halfway to the horizon level, and he's about 6 ft above mean sea level riding a wave (0:18). Also he claims that the "swell" should obscure something at a distance, but the ocean shown has a swell of only a few inches, not "5 feet" as he claims. Swell is measured from the apex to the nadir and the apex is only halfway above mean sea level referenced by "swell." So this means a 5' swell accounts AT MOST for only 30" of obstruction (2-1/2 feet). I have scuba dived off the coast of Santa Barbara, so I am familiar with the vicinity. When you look at the Channel Islands with binoculars, you can only see the ones closest to the coastline of California, because the ones further out are past the curvature of the earth and the horizon line at sea level is too high. You can't see San Clemente Island from Santa Barbara, for example, because it's beyond the curvature of the earth. You have to go out to sea about 20 miles before you can see San Clemente Is. or San Nicholas Is.
(http://www.marinasailing.com/images/channel_islands_map.jpg)
link[/url]]
Channel Islands National Park and Marine Sanctuary is comprised of five Channel Islands along the Santa Barbara Channel and their ocean environment. From north to south, the islands are San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara. Close to the California mainland and only a short trip away from Los Angeles, the park’s five islands provide a delightful break from the hustle and bustle of urban life.
Also, when you look at the ones closest, like Catalina (not technically a Channel Island, but it's 22 miles from Long Beach), you can't see any of the features close to the water, such as the Casino at Avalon, which is about 60 feet tall, regardless of how much magnification you use. I have tried to see the Casino using a Celestron telescope at 300 power and NO DICE. All you can see is some of the houses that are on the hillside above Avalon, about 300 feet above sea level.
At minute 3:00 - 3:38 the author compares two images of the distant island (he says "Anacapa" but it looks more like Santa Cruz), one from 13 feet above sea level (which he erroneously says is 3 feet) to 560 feet elevation (but he doesn't say how he arrived at that figure), and he deliberately obscures the bottom half of the island shore line to make it look more like the lower view.
The second half of the video is a waste of time because he goes down to water's edge and jiggles the camera around as if to make you sea-sick, while most of the distant view is obscured by the little waves of less than 2 feet tall, so you can't see much. But the taller parts of the island which ARE visible he seems to be trying to ignore because he makes no mention of them nor does he bother to keep the camera still while they're in view.
Another huge pile of manure without reference to anything Catholic, anything scientific, and without empirical proof.
-
You have to go out to sea about 20 miles before you can see San Clemente Is. or San Nicholas Is.
(http://www.marinasailing.com/images/channel_islands_map.jpg)
In fact, you can't see San Clemente or San Nicholas from anywhere along the California coast, but you CAN see them from Santa Barbara Is. or Santa Catalina. For example, from the Catalina airport (which I have landed at) you can clearly see the entire height of San Clemente.
Guess why?
And from Santa Barbara Is. and Santa Catalina you likewise can see the California coastline, although the image of the mainland is halfway obscured at the bottom by the convex water surface of the curved earth, just as the lower half of the Chicago skyline is obscured over Lake Michigan from the east shoreline.
-
MORE empirical proof:
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fstatic.flickr.com%2F3301%2F5813994060_a41f087019_b.jpg%3Fw%3D648&sp=b428a9a22ceccb8e589828de2ff8d8e4)
You can see San Clemente Island from there clearly because Catalina Airport is on top of a mountain.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catalinaconservancy.org%2Fuserfiles%2Fimages%2Fmaps_gis%2Faitstour.png&sp=50ed6ff51c4163dcaf56d2966fcd9da3)
It's a very dangerous landing from the east side. Some planes don't make it.......
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsailingcamelot.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fcrash.jpg&sp=189a4402666e0064d942713c13b22a3a)
(http://ecatalina.com/images/2406/3332_2__small.jpg)
Maybe they thought the earth is flat!!
AVALON, Calif. – A small single-engine private aircraft crashed Sunday afternoon, November 29th, while attempting to land at Catalina Island’s Airport In The Sky. The incident occurred around noon. According to airport personnel, the plane ran off the end of the runway and ended up upside down on the adjacent hillside. Of the four passengers on board, three were transported to Catalina Island Medical Center, with one reporting back and neck pain, and two reported as having only minor injuries. The fourth passenger was not injured.
-
MORE empirical proof:
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fstatic.flickr.com%2F3301%2F5813994060_a41f087019_b.jpg%3Fw%3D648&sp=b428a9a22ceccb8e589828de2ff8d8e4)
You can see San Clemente Island from there clearly because Catalina Airport is on top of a mountain.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catalinaconservancy.org%2Fuserfiles%2Fimages%2Fmaps_gis%2Faitstour.png&sp=50ed6ff51c4163dcaf56d2966fcd9da3)
It's a very dangerous landing from the east side. Some planes don't make it.......
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsailingcamelot.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fcrash.jpg&sp=189a4402666e0064d942713c13b22a3a)
(http://ecatalina.com/images/2406/3332_2__small.jpg)
Maybe they thought the earth is flat!!
AVALON, Calif. – A small single-engine private aircraft crashed Sunday afternoon, November 29th, while attempting to land at Catalina Island’s Airport In The Sky. The incident occurred around noon. According to airport personnel, the plane ran off the end of the runway and ended up upside down on the adjacent hillside. Of the four passengers on board, three were transported to Catalina Island Medical Center, with one reporting back and neck pain, and two reported as having only minor injuries. The fourth passenger was not injured.
Clearly, there is no understanding in any of this. These people want to serve the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and its sciences. Good luck with that.
-
You have to go out to sea about 20 miles before you can see San Clemente Is. or San Nicholas Is.
(http://www.marinasailing.com/images/channel_islands_map.jpg)
In fact, you can't see San Clemente or San Nicholas from anywhere along the California coast, but you CAN see them from Santa Barbara Is. or Santa Catalina. For example, from the Catalina airport (which I have landed at) you can clearly see the entire height of San Clemente.
Guess why?
And from Santa Barbara Is. and Santa Catalina you likewise can see the California coastline, although the image of the mainland is halfway obscured at the bottom by the convex water surface of the curved earth, just as the lower half of the Chicago skyline is obscured over Lake Michigan from the east shoreline.
This is so convoluted and misrepresented. Catalina mountain tops should be the only thing visible from the California shore, yet the BASE of the mountain and that of the entire island is clearly visible. Seen it myself. Not possible on a globe.
-
In the following post cassini references five periods in history during which the scientific method (i.e., science) was used to substantiate the theory that the earth is approximately spherical (spheroid).
I don't say "a sphere" because that is not precisely true. I don't say "pear-shaped" because flat-earthers like to joke about how planet earth is said to look like a pear. Below, cassini prefers "orange shaped" which makes more sense, but in my experience oranges can vary from very spherical to egg-shaped and everything in between. In fact, some of the best tasting oranges are very round, or pointed at the top, or flat at the top and/or bottom. So "orange shaped" can be ambivalent at best.
Also, cassini is so gracious as to include mention of how science is not in the business of proving anything, unlike mathematics, geometry and logic, which deal in provable theorems; but instead, science uses observed phenomena and carefully obtained measurements to support and/or defend various theories (not theorems). The scientific method begins with hypothesis, continues with experimental testing of the hypothesis, and after numerous or "sufficient" consistent repeatable results, a theory (not a theorem) is formed, after which further testing challenges the theory. As to how many challenges or how many years are necessary to arrive at a consensus of qualified opinion about that theory, there is not universal agreement, however.
Not mentioned, perhaps because it's outside the scope of this topic, is that there persists heated debate over whether "natural law" can ever be scientifically determined, because this implies that the "law of gravity" is a misnomer, and the "law of conservation of energy" cannot be certain, and even the "first, second and third laws of thermodynamics" are not carved in stone, so to speak. For example, the so-called law of conservation of energy states that neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed. But Catholics are taught from childhood that God created everything, which includes energy and matter, e.g., the material universe. And furthermore, it is Catholic theology that God has the power to create material things at will or to destroy the material universe (the "world") if He chooses to do so.
It is practically universal Catholic doctrine that the time shall come when God re-makes His creation, making all things new, that is, as it was in the Garden of Eden, or perhaps even better than that.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=860&#p7)
[mw2016] wrote on the geocentrism poll thread that really belongs here not on that thread:
Flat earth geocentrism is as the Early Church Fathers saw it and as scripture describes earth, the modern version is fraught with nonsense. So, no...we aren't going anywhere. Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof. Like useful idiots, modern geocentrists think they've seen the ball earth but they've seen nothing more than CGI cartoons. That is the ONLY reason they think earth is a ball because they have no other proof. Modern geocentrists refuse to demonstrate proof of the curve they think they see in pictures. Until they do, there is no need for further discussion because flat earthers have proven no curve time and time and time again. Scripture backs us up. Talk is cheap. Empirical proof wins.
'Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof.'
‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are often held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common of these concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief however, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists [should] prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to those for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.’ --- Satoshi Kanazawa’s The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008.
So what evidence do I base a global earth on? I have not been on top of Mount Everest where one should see the ice-wall that prevented Noah's Flood from going over the edges. Accordingly I had to look elsewhere.
My evidence for a global earth came from the science of godesy (Earth measurement on a large scale).
‘The period [1,876 years duration] from Eratosthenes [Greek mathematician, d. 194 B.C.] to Picard [French astronomer and priest, Jean-Félix Picard, d. 1682 A.D.] can be called the spherical era of geodesy. A new ellipsoidal era was begun by Sir Isaac Newton and Christiaan 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.’ ---Encyclopaedia Britannica, chapter: Earth, p.535.
‘Experimental evidence supporting this idea [that the earth is shaped like an orange] came in 1672 as a result of a French expedition to Guiana. It is possible to determine whether or not the earth is an oblate spheroid by measuring the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude differences at two places along the meridian (the ellipse passing through the Poles) at different latitudes, which means at different distances from the Equator.’
Domenico Cassini, [Geocentrist astronomer and surveyor. Cassini’s talent as a surveyor was also well known. In 1657 he was asked by none other than Pope Alexander VII to resolve a dispute regarding the flow of the River Reno between Bologna and Ferrara that was causing flooding. For the next six years Cassini was occupied with similar work around the Papal States]
Cassini wanted to check the measurements for himself. King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the French Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere. The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.
Then, in 1732 Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis joined Newton’s supporters to be followed by the prominent scientist Clairout. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. In 1735, financed by King Louis XV, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition - after the conditions nearly killed them - completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres long, they ‘found’ their bulge.
Ten years later, after measuring two baselines, one 12.2 and 10.3 kilometres (7.6 and 6.4 miles), La Condamine and his group emerged from the Amazon with their mission accomplished, they too found their curve of the earth.
To my knowledge godesy never found a flat-earth. Indeed which point along the ice-wall is the south pole, necessary for godesy measurements[?] To my knowledge the south pope and north pole are found exactly where man expected to find them on a global earth.
Until then, I will go with the scientific evidence.
Thank you, cassini, for a reliably educated post. Your recondite contribution is appreciated.
Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself I'm going to repeat myself. In reply to the following,
[mw2016] wrote on the geocentrism poll thread that really belongs here not on that thread:
Flat earth geocentrism is as the Early Church Fathers saw it and as scripture describes earth, the modern version is fraught with nonsense. So, no...we aren't going anywhere. Ball earthers need to leave because they have only a theory and zero proof. Like useful idiots, modern geocentrists think they've seen the ball earth but they've seen nothing more than CGI cartoons. That is the ONLY reason they think earth is a ball because they have no other proof. Modern geocentrists refuse to demonstrate proof of the curve they think they see in pictures. Until they do, there is no need for further discussion because flat earthers have proven no curve time and time and time again. Scripture backs us up. Talk is cheap. Empirical proof wins.
I have to say what I said before, that I don't "think" I've "seen the ball earth," I know I've seen with my own eyes the immediate consequence of the earth's curvature, using surveying equipment perched on top of Mount Whitney, CA, at 14,500 ft. elev. While I will admit that isn't "proof of a ball earth," it is a whole lot more SUPPORT for the theory of the earth's curvature than it is evidence AGAINST it.
It is obviously not "nothing but CGI cartoons." There is a difference between seeing the reality first hand with your own two eyes and looking at a CGI cartoon.
Flat-earthers are so entirely dug-in to their pet project that even if you were to take them to a promontory 50,000 (fifty thousand) miles high to show them what the earth looks like they would not believe their eyes. I know this to be factual, because immediately after cassini posted the nice job he did, above, "irt" (who only has 8 posts at CI but has a much greater ego) made the following post:
It is precisely scientific evidence that shows us that the earth is flat.
Flat earthers and round earthers agree on the same figure for the circuмference of the earth : 25000 miles. All we say is that if the earth is round then it necessarily should by the SCIENCE do certain things, like curve. Scientifically, it does not, because thanks to modern technology we can see and zoom in on items that should be below that curve. Round earthers give no scientific response to that, and therefore the theory of a 25000 mile ball earth is necessarily false.
Here again, I direct readers to just one video.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/S4oT2EbDONs[/youtube]
Once you have viewed this type in "ship horizon flat earth" (or similar) on youtube and you will get many more.
The fact is, that flat-earthers and spheroid earthers do not agree on the same figure for the circuмference of the earth, "25,000 miles," as irt erroneously states. I guess irt doesn't know much about what flat-earthers claim, even if he thinks he is one. Flat-earthers claim that's the distance around the north pole at the equator, but they say the circuмference of the ice-shelf at the furthest distance from so-called north is over 60,000 miles.
The video posted is chock-full of errors. The camera is obviously 3 feet above the sand, but the author ignores the 10 feet that this sand is manifestly above the water level. You can easily see this by looking at the height of a surfer standing on his surfboard: his head is a little more than halfway to the horizon level, and he's about 6 ft above mean sea level riding a wave (0:18). Also he claims that the "swell" should obscure something at a distance, but the ocean shown has a swell of only a few inches, not "5 feet" as he claims. Swell is measured from the apex to the nadir and the apex is only halfway above mean sea level referenced by "swell." So this means a 5' swell accounts AT MOST for only 30" of obstruction (2-1/2 feet). I have scuba dived off the coast of Santa Barbara, so I am familiar with the vicinity. When you look at the Channel Islands with binoculars, you can only see the ones closest to the coastline of California, because the ones further out are past the curvature of the earth and the horizon line at sea level is too high. You can't see San Clemente Island from Santa Barbara, for example, because it's beyond the curvature of the earth. You have to go out to sea about 20 miles before you can see San Clemente Is. or San Nicholas Is.
(http://www.marinasailing.com/images/channel_islands_map.jpg)
link[/url]]
Channel Islands National Park and Marine Sanctuary is comprised of five Channel Islands along the Santa Barbara Channel and their ocean environment. From north to south, the islands are San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara. Close to the California mainland and only a short trip away from Los Angeles, the park’s five islands provide a delightful break from the hustle and bustle of urban life.
Also, when you look at the ones closest, like Catalina (not technically a Channel Island, but it's 22 miles from Long Beach), you can't see any of the features close to the water, such as the Casino at Avalon, which is about 60 feet tall, regardless of how much magnification you use. I have tried to see the Casino using a Celestron telescope at 300 power and NO DICE. All you can see is some of the houses that are on the hillside above Avalon, about 300 feet above sea level.
At minute 3:00 - 3:38 the author compares two images of the distant island (he says "Anacapa" but it looks more like Santa Cruz), one from 13 feet above sea level (which he erroneously says is 3 feet) to 560 feet elevation (but he doesn't say how he arrived at that figure), and he deliberately obscures the bottom half of the island shore line to make it look more like the lower view.
The second half of the video is a waste of time because he goes down to water's edge and jiggles the camera around as if to make you sea-sick, while most of the distant view is obscured by the little waves of less than 2 feet tall, so you can't see much. But the taller parts of the island which ARE visible he seems to be trying to ignore because he makes no mention of them nor does he bother to keep the camera still while they're in view.
Another huge pile of manure without reference to anything Catholic, anything scientific, and without empirical proof.
"Another huge pile of manure without reference to anything Catholic, anything scientific, and without empirical proof."
It must be obvious to all that this defence of a flat-earth has sunk into mere rhetoric. On that basis there is little purpose in serious debate on the science side of it anymore. As regards the Catholicity of the above, here is what I say.
Domenico Cassini was God's astronomer and Rome's topography surveyor. His defence of Catholic biblical geocentrism and creationism in history cannot be surpassed by any Catholic since, not even popes.
Cassini's investigations into the shape of the earth, that is global earth, had at its core the defence of God's direct geocentric creation. Isaac Newton claimed precession was caused by the earth's shape, that is, a bulge, and its spinning caused what we will call heliocentric precession. But Newton went further, he said the bulge was caused when the earth evolved from its paste state. In other words, a bulge showed an evolved earth. Newtonians claimed they proved this through geodesy, that is an evolved bulging earth that showed a spinning earth caused precession..
Cassini, Isaac Newton's headache, decided he would check the earth's shape. This he did and falsified the evolutionary bulging earth theory.
In other words, in the field of science only Cassini's work described above was defending the Catholic biblical direct geocentric creation leading into the 18th century. If that is not Catholic then what is?
-
You missed some of my posts it seems. The heliocentric model in various forms of pagan worship of other gods has locked horns with the Church for almost two centuries. In fact, not yet mentioned, the same sun worship existed before the Church, and even has tentacles reaching back to Cain and his people who were heavily steeped in Satanic worship in the valley where he and his family dwelled below the mountain of God. Ecclesiastes 1:9 "...nothing new under the sun."
Although this appears to be a reach, the problem with demon worship and sun worship remained one of the main problems throughout the centuries and a constant affront to God.
-
Domenico Cassini was God's astronomer and Rome's topography surveyor. His defence of Catholic biblical geocentrism and creationism in history cannot be surpassed by any Catholic since, not even popes.
I am unaware of any experiments or proofs done by Domenico Cassini that show he proved a ball-earth. Please post such material that shows this. Thanks.
-
The fact is, that flat-earthers and spheroid earthers do not agree on the same figure for the circuмference of the earth, "25,000 miles," as irt erroneously states. I guess irt doesn't know much about what flat-earthers claim, even if he thinks he is one. Flat-earthers claim that's the distance around the north pole at the equator, but they say the circuмference of the ice-shelf at the furthest distance from so-called north is over 60,000 miles.
The video posted is chock-full of errors. The camera is obviously 3 feet above the sand, but the author ignores the 10 feet that this sand is manifestly above the water level. You can easily see this by looking at the height of a surfer standing on his surfboard: his head is a little more than halfway to the horizon level, and he's about 6 ft above mean sea level riding a wave (0:18). Also he claims that the "swell" should obscure something at a distance, but the ocean shown has a swell of only a few inches, not "5 feet" as he claims. Swell is measured from the apex to the nadir and the apex is only halfway above mean sea level referenced by "swell." So this means a 5' swell accounts AT MOST for only 30" of obstruction (2-1/2 feet). I have scuba dived off the coast of Santa Barbara, so I am familiar with the vicinity. When you look at the Channel Islands with binoculars, you can only see the ones closest to the coastline of California, because the ones further out are past the curvature of the earth and the horizon line at sea level is too high. You can't see San Clemente Island from Santa Barbara, for example, because it's beyond the curvature of the earth. You have to go out to sea about 20 miles before you can see San Clemente Is. or San Nicholas Is.
(http://www.marinasailing.com/images/channel_islands_map.jpg)
link[/url]]
Channel Islands National Park and Marine Sanctuary is comprised of five Channel Islands along the Santa Barbara Channel and their ocean environment. From north to south, the islands are San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara. Close to the California mainland and only a short trip away from Los Angeles, the park’s five islands provide a delightful break from the hustle and bustle of urban life.
Also, when you look at the ones closest, like Catalina (not technically a Channel Island, but it's 22 miles from Long Beach), you can't see any of the features close to the water, such as the Casino at Avalon, which is about 60 feet tall, regardless of how much magnification you use. I have tried to see the Casino using a Celestron telescope at 300 power and NO DICE. All you can see is some of the houses that are on the hillside above Avalon, about 300 feet above sea level.
At minute 3:00 - 3:38 the author compares two images of the distant island (he says "Anacapa" but it looks more like Santa Cruz), one from 13 feet above sea level (which he erroneously says is 3 feet) to 560 feet elevation (but he doesn't say how he arrived at that figure), and he deliberately obscures the bottom half of the island shore line to make it look more like the lower view.
The second half of the video is a waste of time because he goes down to water's edge and jiggles the camera around as if to make you sea-sick, while most of the distant view is obscured by the little waves of less than 2 feet tall, so you can't see much. But the taller parts of the island which ARE visible he seems to be trying to ignore because he makes no mention of them nor does he bother to keep the camera still while they're in view.
I am happy to respond, in so far as I have the time, to your post.
Circuмference for if the Earth is round. Diameter for if the Earth is flat.
As for the video. The author admits that the camera is 3 feet and takes that into account. You can see for yourself by using the earth curve calculator. https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
That the sand is a whopping 10 feet above the water is certainly not evident to me or any honest observer. May I suggest going over it again?
But lets take it at that, that is precisely what the second half of the video is for, to remove any possible doubt about that issue. Also even if we add 10 feet into the calculations, it in no way disproves the point the author is making.
The swell is the waves, and can be even more than just 5 feet. But it is not that important to the issue, as he is simply referring to it so he can show that he is taking everything into account.
The point about not being able to islands with a telescope etc. seems to infer that the creator of the video is perhaps faking the whole thing? The response to that again is to either try these things for oneself (It doesn't have to be on the same magnitude - anything that shows there is no curve is enough for most people) or to view the many other videos on the issue.
If I can be allowed to make one "rhetorical" point, I will say that it doesn't matter what the intelligence of a person is, everybody is able to judge the truth of this matter, particularly when one judges the intellectual honesty of people. By your fruits you show know them.
In conclusion this video and many of the other videos on this topic are not choc a bloc full of error. Thanks for reading, and God speed!
-
Domenico Cassini was God's astronomer and Rome's topography surveyor. His defence of Catholic biblical geocentrism and creationism in history cannot be surpassed by any Catholic since, not even popes.
I am unaware of any experiments or proofs done by Domenico Cassini that show he proved a ball-earth. Please post such material that shows this. Thanks.
Cassini's geodesy showed the earth is pear shaped, not Newton's equatorial bulge. That was in 1720.
Now maybe you do not believe there are satellites orbiting the earth but some of us do.
'Anyway, in 1959, the satellite Vanguard met 100 percent of its scientific objectives, providing a wealth of information on the size and shape of the earth, air density, temperature ranges and micrometeorite impact. It proved that the earth is pear-shaped, not round [or an ellipsoid of revolution as they called Newton's bulging earth]; corrected ideas about the atmosphere's density at high altitudes and improved the accuracy of world maps.' http://www.spacedaily.com/news/satellite-tech-03c.html
Just as Cassini said it was back in 1720.
But the shape of the earth goes back to Egyptology and its Geodesy:
Of interest to us here is the claim that the pyramids are related to the shape of the earth on a scale of 1:43,200, a number ‘that is not a random number.’
‘On the contrary, it is one of a series of numbers, and multiples of those numbers, which relate to the phenomenon of precession of the equinoxes, and which have become embedded in archaic myths all around the world. As the reader can confirm by glancing back at Part V [of his book] the basic numerals of the Pyramids/Earth ratio crop up again and again in those myths, as 43,200 sometimes as 432, as 4,320, as 432,000, as 4,320,000, and so on.’ ---Graham Hancock: Fingerprints of the Gods, Mandarian, p.461
‘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 = 24734.94545 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) = 24748.55897 miles circuмference.
So, if we go by the Great Pyramid maths then, which the same author believes is ‘a representation of the northern hemisphere of the earth projected on flat surfaces,’ this part of the earth indicates it is a prolate - not an oblate - spheroid, not flattened at the poles but slightly elongated, with the equatorial circuмference 13 miles shorter than the polar circuмference, that is, slightly egg-shaped. Amazingly, this is exactly what the Cassinis measured in 1720.
So, here we have these pyramid experts and scholars who keep emphasising the unbelievably accurate structures this super-race was capable of, giving us a fascinating theory based on some very impressive mathematical calculations related to 2pi.
-
But the shape of the earth goes back to Egyptology and its Geodesy:
Of interest to us here is the claim that the pyramids are related to the shape of the earth on a scale of 1:43,200, a number ‘that is not a random number.’
The size and shape of the Egyptian pyramids is in no way a proof of the shape of the earth. You have got to be joking.
-
But the shape of the earth goes back to Egyptology and its Geodesy:
Of interest to us here is the claim that the pyramids are related to the shape of the earth on a scale of 1:43,200, a number ‘that is not a random number.’
The size and shape of the Egyptian pyramids is in no way a proof of the shape of the earth. You have got to be joking.
The joker is the one who gave the interesting story of the pyramids a thumbs down. On a thread proposing a flat earth I thought it would be an interesting introduction.
Of course it is not offered as a 'proof, just a fact of history.
Imagine a pyramid for a flat-earth. Imagine trying to tell the pharaoh the earth is flat when building the pyramid.
I suspect there would be another grave inside.
-
Hi guys.
I believe the Earth is flat. I saw this thread and thought I would say something about it.
I don't know how many people in the netherlands know about the flat earth.
Someone earlier was saying about the boats on the horizon.
This seems to me quite true.
There is a popular video on this here
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/6J41GFGQ7jg[/youtube]
It was taken as you will see in the netherlands.
you will see the results are quite interesting. The top of the ship always remains at the same height.
-
Well, whata ya know? irt has been banned. Interesting.
The fact is, that flat-earthers and spheroid earthers do not agree on the same figure for the circuмference of the earth, "25,000 miles," as irt erroneously states. I guess irt doesn't know much about what flat-earthers claim, even if he thinks he is one. Flat-earthers claim that's the distance around the north pole at the equator, but they say the circuмference of the ice-shelf at the furthest distance from so-called north is over 60,000 miles.
The video posted is chock-full of errors. The camera is obviously 3 feet above the sand, but the author ignores the 10 feet that this sand is manifestly above the water level. You can easily see this by looking at the height of a surfer standing on his surfboard: his head is a little more than halfway to the horizon level, and he's about 6 ft above mean sea level riding a wave (0:18). Also he claims that the "swell" should obscure something at a distance, but the ocean shown has a swell of only a few inches, not "5 feet" as he claims. Swell is measured from the apex to the nadir and the apex is only halfway above mean sea level referenced by "swell." So this means a 5' swell accounts AT MOST for only 30" of obstruction (2-1/2 feet). I have scuba dived off the coast of Santa Barbara, so I am familiar with the vicinity. When you look at the Channel Islands with binoculars, you can only see the ones closest to the coastline of California, because the ones further out are past the curvature of the earth and the horizon line at sea level is too high. You can't see San Clemente Island from Santa Barbara, for example, because it's beyond the curvature of the earth. You have to go out to sea about 20 miles before you can see San Clemente Is. or San Nicholas Is.
(http://www.marinasailing.com/images/channel_islands_map.jpg)
link[/url]]
Channel Islands National Park and Marine Sanctuary is comprised of five Channel Islands along the Santa Barbara Channel and their ocean environment. From north to south, the islands are San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara. Close to the California mainland and only a short trip away from Los Angeles, the park’s five islands provide a delightful break from the hustle and bustle of urban life.
Also, when you look at the ones closest, like Catalina (not technically a Channel Island, but it's 22 miles from Long Beach), you can't see any of the features close to the water, such as the Casino at Avalon, which is about 60 feet tall, regardless of how much magnification you use. I have tried to see the Casino using a Celestron telescope at 300 power and NO DICE. All you can see is some of the houses that are on the hillside above Avalon, about 300 feet above sea level.
At minute 3:00 - 3:38 the author compares two images of the distant island (he says "Anacapa" but it looks more like Santa Cruz), one from 13 feet above sea level (which he erroneously says is 3 feet) to 560 feet elevation (but he doesn't say how he arrived at that figure), and he deliberately obscures the bottom half of the island shore line to make it look more like the lower view.
The second half of the video is a waste of time because he goes down to water's edge and jiggles the camera around as if to make you sea-sick, while most of the distant view is obscured by the little waves of less than 2 feet tall, so you can't see much. But the taller parts of the island which ARE visible he seems to be trying to ignore because he makes no mention of them nor does he bother to keep the camera still while they're in view.
I am happy to respond, in so far as I have the time, to your post.
Circuмference for if the Earth is round. Diameter for if the Earth is flat.
As for the video. The author admits that the camera is 3 feet and takes that into account. You can see for yourself by using the earth curve calculator. https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
That the sand is a whopping 10 feet above the water is certainly not evident to me or any honest observer. May I suggest going over it again?
I have experience doing surveying work at the coastline and it is obvious to anyone with such knowledge that the sand where the camera was set up on a tripod is about 10 feet above sea level. But the author of the video ignores that 10 feet and says his camera is 3 feet above sea level when that's only the height of his tripod.
The earth curve calculator uses the height of the viewer as a basis for the elevation of the distant object, and it is a very important factor. A difference of 10 feet on the viewing end makes a large difference on the elevation of the visible island at a distance.
But lets take it at that, that is precisely what the second half of the video is for, to remove any possible doubt about that issue. Also even if we add 10 feet into the calculations, it in no way disproves the point the author is making.
Wrong.
The swell is the waves, and can be even more than just 5 feet. But it is not that important to the issue, as he is simply referring to it so he can show that he is taking everything into account.
The point about not being able to [view?] islands with a telescope etc. seems to infer [you mean to say imply] that the creator of the video is perhaps faking the whole thing?
I did not imply that he is faking the whole thing. What I said is that his interpretation of the video he legitimately made is all wrong. He ignores the elevation of his camera on the tripod by saying it's 3 feet when it's actually about 13 feet above mean sea level. He never used the term "mean sea level" perhaps because he's ignorant of the concept. Ignorance of important concepts is the beginning of incorrect interpretation.
Look at the position of the head of the surfers riding their surfboards at the two locations of the camera, and you can see how different they are when the camera is 13 feet high or right down by the water's edge -- which by the way is about 2 feet above mean sea level, not at mean sea level. If his camera was at sea level it would be drenched with water. You can dig a hole in the sand where he put his camera and find the water level where a puddle forms and it would be about one or two feet deep. The fact that the water is splashing up to that point is due to the wave action of the sea, which spills upward on the beach with each wave surge, about a foot or two higher than sea level, even at very low surf height.
The response to that again is to either try these things for oneself (It doesn't have to be on the same magnitude - anything that shows there is no curve is enough for most people) or to view the many other videos on the issue.
If I can be allowed to make one "rhetorical" point, I will say that it doesn't matter what the intelligence of a person is, everybody is able to judge the truth of this matter, particularly when one judges the intellectual honesty of people. By your fruits you show know them.
Go out and get some experience shooting elevations with a builder's level at the beach and then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.
That is, if you weren't already banned!!
In conclusion this video and many of the other videos on this topic are not choc a bloc full of error. Thanks for reading, and God speed!
Chock a block full of error? You must not be a native English speaker, either.
-
Well, whata ya know? irt has been banned. Interesting.
What for?? For being a flat earther??
-
What for?? For being a flat earther??
I highly doubt Matthew would ban anyone for being deceived by flat-earthism, but there are a number of infractions that WILL get you banned, so take your pick. One of them could be for impersonating a moderator by way of PM, for example, or perhaps registering with multiple user accounts. Who knows?
But his/her contribution here was spurious, for sure, which could qualify as deliberate deception. After giving him/her a point-by-point reply he/she would repeatedly dismiss everything even stooping to introduce objective error into the mix. Oh, wait: that's what you and happenby do, too................ Never mind.
-
For those accusing me of not providing any so-called scientific proof (which is impossible because science is not in the business of proving anything), here is some scientific empirical evidence (not "proof" which is always impossible) on which happenby can predictably mutter false accusations of "huge pile of manure without reference to anything Catholic, anything scientific, and without empirical proof" (which is very un-Catholic, BTW, since it's an objective lie, not to mention that "empirical proof" does not exist) or whatever other choice foul words she can come up with today:
When you look at the Channel Islands with binoculars, you can only see the ones closest to the coastline of California, because the ones further out are past the curvature of the earth and the horizon line at sea level is too high. You can't see San Clemente Island from Santa Barbara, for example, because it's beyond the curvature of the earth. You have to go out to sea about 20 miles before you can see San Clemente Is. or San Nicholas Is.
(http://www.marinasailing.com/images/channel_islands_map.jpg)
link[/url]]
Channel Islands National Park and Marine Sanctuary is comprised of five Channel Islands along the Santa Barbara Channel and their ocean environment. From north to south, the islands are San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara. Close to the California mainland and only a short trip away from Los Angeles, the park’s five islands provide a delightful break from the hustle and bustle of urban life.
Also, when you look at the ones closest, like Santa Catalina, you can't see any of the features close to the water, such as the Casino at Avalon, which is about 60 feet tall, regardless of how much magnification you use. I have tried to see the Casino using a Celestron telescope at 300 power and NO DICE. All you can see is some of the houses that are on the hillside above Avalon, about 300 feet above sea level.
Speaking of the Casino at Avalon, it looks like this from up high,
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catalinaislandvacation.org%2Fimages%2Favalon-catalina-island.jpg&sp=0af1a83b21780cb8d7db37ecb3da2eaf)
-- it looks like this from up close,
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs.dreamstime.com%2Fz%2Favalon-casino-building-10416407.jpg&sp=b784846b470b3c2a41d6d46f3bf7cd3a)
-- and this is what it looks like from about a quarter mile out to sea:
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fwww.catalinavacations.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2Fcasino.jpg&sp=0329c1a0eaa3564e98173b725bd3a2a4)
Here's another view from sea (the town of Avalon is to the left of the Casino):
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fboonstoon.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2Ffirst-view-of-catalina.jpg&sp=a58c8dc8ba661591423225ae6c49f42a)
See the difference?
Notice how the shape of the ridge line changes behind the Casino when you go out to sea. That's because you can see more of the higher mountain behind Avalon, which is obscured from up close when the steep slopes in the foreground block the view of the high ridge behind, just as the convex surface of the ocean water blocks the view of distant tall objects (like trying to view the Casino from San Pedro).
From the coast of California, like Lunada Point (recently in the news for a surfers' fort built without permit) or San Pedro or Huntington Beach, the Casino at Avalon is not visible, because it is obscured by the surface of the ocean. That can happen with a convex shaped ocean (due to curvature of the earth) but it should obviously not happen with a so-called flat earth, any more than the upper half of the island mountain would be invisible. The top of the mountain being visible is not proof of anything except that the island is visible, that is, it is not obscured by the air, mist over the water, fog (sometimes it is though) or any other obstruction.
The point is, logically speaking (which is apparently a STRETCH for flat-earthers), if you can see the top of the mountain you should be able to see the bottom of the mountain, if the earth is "flat."
Repeating the point: if you can see the top of the mountain you should be able to see the bottom of the mountain, if the earth is "flat."
One more time: if you can see the top of the mountain you should be able to see the bottom of the mountain, if the earth is "flat."
Here is a view of Santa Catalina from San Pedro (showing the northwest half only -- the left half is cropped off frame to the left). The isthmus is the dimple in the ridge line in the right half of this view; it's actually located about 3/4 of the way from the left end toward the right as seen in the lower photos that depict the entire length of the island:
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fc1.staticflickr.com%2F5%2F4032%2F4622516899_ef0d0dee9e_z.jpg&sp=67f2c96aaf812f6a931402e8d8d7bf00)
This view from Newport Beach, taken from about 100 ft elevation, shows the entire island (Avalon and the Casino are at the extreme left end):
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fnewportbeachrealestatecafe.com%2F2015%2F01%2F17%2Fnewport-beach-activity-visit-catalina-island%2F&ua=TW96aWxsYS81LjAgKFdpbmRvd3M7IFU7IFdpbmRvd3MgTlQgNS4yOyBlbi1VUykgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNTMyLjkgKEtIVE1MLCBsaWtlIEdlY2tvKSBDaHJvbWUvNTMuMFNhZmFyaS81MzIuOQ&uadata=3e57f7bfd583a2e23c248faed2c5f0fd&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewportbeachrealestatecafe.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2Fcatalina-island.jpg&sp=c3d41f6e622401273a15473085f2bd45&f=54227eebb248eeb107355b4456eada80.jpg)
Can you see the Casino? No, you can't. Neither can anyone else, because from close to sea level at Newport or San Pedro the Casino is not visible.
Here is a shot from the top of Palos Verdes, a tall hill near San Pedro, elevation 800 feet (Avalon and Casino are at the extreme left end of the island shown):
(http://capnbob.us/blog/wp-images/0602/catisland.jpg)
From 800 feet high and 25 miles distant, your view is akin to the view you get when about 5 to 10 miles from the target, over the curvature of the ocean surface.
There is a LOT more low-level detail visible here, such as the ridge line each side of the isthmus (Two Harbors) and the very low right end of the island which is not seen at all in the other shots. At 800 feet above mean sea level a LOT more of the distant island that's near the water comes into view!
It shows an inset with a tiny white dot which is the top half of the Casino, barely visible without any telephoto but the image is enlarged.
Two Harbors closeup at the isthmus:
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pilikiacharters.com%2Fcharters%2Fcatalina_channel_islands.php&ua=TW96aWxsYS81LjAgKFdpbmRvd3M7IFU7IFdpbmRvd3MgTlQgNS4yOyBlbi1VUykgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNTMyLjkgKEtIVE1MLCBsaWtlIEdlY2tvKSBDaHJvbWUvNTMuMFNhZmFyaS81MzIuOQ&uadata=3e57f7bfd583a2e23c248faed2c5f0fd&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pilikiacharters.com%2Fdatabase%2Fimages%2FThe_Isthmus_small.jpg&sp=f0dae854bb9ab5da39fa06cd7eacd37e&f=28b539a28357141785119f70b10ac9f7.jpg)
I have been to Catalina several times on different occasions, and you cannot see the Casino come into view from a boat on the water, until you're out to sea about 5 miles, 1/4 of the way. Then you can only see the red roof and a bit of the white walls. At 10 miles from Avalon you can see more of the white walls of the Casino. Then from about 1 mile away from the Casino you can see all of it, since the white walls begin about 20 feet above mean sea level. They did that to protect the Casino from the infrequent sea surges that swell water height to about 10 feet above mean sea level. If there were a tsunami, however (there hasn't been one in modern history) the Casino at Catalina could conceivably suffer water damage, since tsunamis are known to have surged over 100 feet high in the past.
-
After giving him/her a point-by-point reply he/she would repeatedly dismiss everything even stooping to introduce objective error into the mix. Oh, wait: that's what you and happenby do, too................ Never mind.
I don't dismiss your objections to FE, and I usually reply to them. That's more than I can say for you, as there have been several aspects of FE you haven't responded to.
I've not been following your Catalina Island thing very closely, but if someone is standing at sea-level on a beach (not on a cliff above the beach) with a tripod looking across as you describe (surveying, telescope, etc.) doesn't the body of water have the potential to have swells and waves at a distance that are going to obscure your line of sight? Since we all know the oceans, and even the Great Lakes can make incredibly tall waves.
My point in mentioning this is your argument about the "bottoms" not being visible. That it might, therefore, if you are looking over water, be due to the nature of the ocean swells itself - not to curvature of the earth.
-
You just gave me an idea!
If you were to mount a laser light on a tripod, say, 25 feet high on the beach at Newport and then mount a target mirror on a corresponding 25 ft. tripod on the beach at Catalina, at night - you could probably show a level beam of light!
Voila - no curvature!
-
After giving him/her a point-by-point reply he/she would repeatedly dismiss everything even stooping to introduce objective error into the mix. Oh, wait: that's what you and happenby do, too................ Never mind.
I don't dismiss your objections to FE, and I usually reply to them. That's more than I can say for you, as there have been several aspects of FE you haven't responded to.
And what might that be? Please provide a list of all the aspects of flat-earthism to which I have not responded.
I've not been following your Catalina Island thing very closely, but if someone is standing at sea-level on a beach (not on a cliff above the beach) with a tripod looking across as you describe (surveying, telescope, etc.) doesn't the body of water have the potential to have swells and waves at a distance that are going to obscure your line of sight? Since we all know the oceans, and even the Great Lakes can make incredibly tall waves.
Certainly the water has the POTENTIAL to have swells and waves, but that would occur during a storm, when visibility is reduced, so the best photos cannot be had at those times. Whenever you have excellent visibility like in the photo above with the Casino inset enlargement, the waves could be no more than a few feet high, certainly less than 5 feet. The top half of the swell is all that affects your view. The bottom half goes DOWN into the water and while it can be part of the measurement it doesn't matter in our application. So a 5-foot swell only reduces visibility by 2-1/2 feet (30").
My point in mentioning this is your argument about the "bottoms" not being visible. That it might, therefore, if you are looking over water, be due to the nature of the ocean swells itself - not to curvature of the earth.
The lower portions of Catalina in the photos above are not visible at all EXCEPT in the shot taken from 800 ft. elev. atop Palos Verdes on a very clear day. There's no way that can be accounted for with a few meager feet of ocean swell. The Casino is over 100 feet tall, so from a standpoint of flat-earthism, a shot of Catalina from 100 ft. elevation couldn't possibly be obscured even if the ocean swell was 50 feet tall (which it has NEVER been, especially on a clear day).
However, from a standpoint of a spheroid earth's curvature, such obscuring is nearly certain. It would most definitely be obscured with 25' camera elevation above m.s.l. and 25' target elevation.
You just gave me an idea!
If you were to mount a laser light on a tripod, say, 25 feet high on the beach at Newport and then mount a target mirror on a corresponding 25 ft. tripod on the beach at Catalina, at night - you could probably show a level beam of light!
Voila - no curvature!
Okay, no problem. Someone needs to pay for the reflectors and the placement. You might even need to pay for permits in Catalina to set them up. There are reflectors available that don't need to be calibrated, and light from a wide angle can make them light up, like the special paint they use on highway traffic signs. One could be placed near sea level, one more at every 100 ft. up to say about 400 ft. total, or 5 reflectors. Then a laser from L.A. Harbor or the Queen Mary (or thereabouts) could be shined at Catalina, say at night, and the number of visible reflections counted. I would expect that below 200 ft. above the surf, none would be visible, and the one at 200 ft. high would appear to be setting directly on the surface of the water, if at all visible. It would be challenging to check what happens by shining a laser from a boat positioned at 5 miles closer or 10 miles closer to Catalina, since the boat would be moving around, making the laser hard to control. Also, the act of shining a powerful laser like that across the ocean might be prohibited by law, because if someone in the path looks at it, their eyesight could be damaged or they might be blinded, and you could be sued for million$.
But that would be a project for someone else, not me.
-
The "photo above with the Casino inset enlargement" is this one:
(http://capnbob.us/blog/wp-images/0602/catisland.jpg)
The isthmus is the low dip in the ridgeline, just about 3/5 of the way from left to right. That's where Two Harbors is, a smaller settlement than Avalon. By L.A. standards, Avalon is pretty tiny, and Two Harbors is more like a truck stop. In the current drought situation they have to ship in all their fresh water. This would be an excellent case for desalination technology BTW. I'm mentioning the isthmus though, because the tiny strip at the bottom is visible in this shot whereas it is not visible at all in shots from lower elevations. Surfers and other locals who spend a lot of time staring over the horizon are wont to mention how hard it is to see the isthmus of Catalina except on a very clear day. "It was so clear you could see the isthmus" is a hackneyed expression in L.A. culture.
The visibility of the tiny isthmus strip is perhaps hard to notice whether in photos or IRL due to the mist in the air near the water, but please notice the shape of the ridgeline going INTO the isthmus, and the width of the slopes as the ridge drops down. L.A. locals talk about this stuff. This photo shows the lowest shoreline view of the island from a distance of any I have seen. The other shots above make the isthmus appear to be much higher land than it is in fact, a fact which this photo shows very well. That's because the other shots are poor in quality and also they are muddled by fog or mist over the surface of the water (due to their low point of view) which make the isthmus appear to be higher land, just like the rest of the island (which it is not).
IOW this photo from 800 ft. el. has an angle of view that bypasses about half of the haze that hangs over the water even on a clear day.
I forgot to mention that you can see the water line in the inset if you look carefully, because the blueish color of the water is different from the blueish color of the island. The water line goes entirely horizontal, and it cuts off the island on the left end, and it underscores the Casino as if cutting into it. But the Casino is 20' above m.s.l.
Also, with a better resolution you wouldn't be able to see any of the boats in the harbor area (which are not visible at all here either, nor are any boats on the sea visible but you can be sure there are some!). Also, you COULD see the very thin taper on the right side (west or "north" as the locals say). Also, you would barely see the lowest part of the isthmus at Two Harbors, which is less than 100 ft. el. (but I'm not sure if that low point is viewable precisely from Palos Verdes since the angle east/west north/south might not be able to see the low point of the isthmus).
One more thing: one might be able to do that "laser light" test above without a laser. A very powerful searchlight or spotlight shining over 25 miles of ocean surface might be strong enough to light up a big reflector target set up on Catalina. And I don't think anyone can get in trouble for shining a spotlight around. Heck, what about lighthouses? They shine spotlights all the time!
-
You just gave me an idea!
If you were to mount a laser light on a tripod, say, 25 feet high on the beach at Newport and then mount a target mirror on a corresponding 25 ft. tripod on the beach at Catalina, at night - you could probably show a level beam of light!
Voila - no curvature!
Wow! Those engineers from the past several centuries had it all wrong... they didn't have to build those lighthouses so high after all! If only they knew that the world was flat. :smirk:
-
Here is a shot of that tiny point at the west end of Catalina, where the ridge line tapers down to the Pacific Ocean:
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catalinaconservancy.org%2Fuserfiles%2Fimages%2FeNEWS%2FJack_Baldelli_West_End_0178_72dpi.jpg&sp=78955038c29ac9c45341c4848b241dfc)
For those having trouble imagining where this is, it's the right end of the island as viewed from L.A., and in these two shots, L.A. is off to the left about 23 miles of open ocean.
The photo above helps to show the flat area or quasi-plateau that lies 500 - 1000 ft from the far end of the island. It's not really a plateau, but the ridge line runs largely horizontal for a ways there. There is one last hump in the ridge before it dives down quickly then tapers off very gradually to the west end proper. Where it dives down quickly is where most distant photos of Catalina appear to be the end of the island, but you can see here there is a good 500 more feet of it before it goes underwater at the west end.
This demonstrates that most photos from afar of Catalina's west end do not show the bottom 100 to 200 feet of the island's profile or elevation.
It's not "scientific proof" or "empirical proof" but it is very strong support of the theory that something universally obscures our view of the lower 150 feet or so of the island when viewed from the L.A. coastline, close to mean sea level. Further scientific empirical evidence resides in the fact that the same island west end when viewed from 800 ft. above m.s.l. atop Palos Verdes DOES show that lower 150 feet of gradually tapering rock ridge as it goes into the sea.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.discoveringamerica-history.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F12%2Fcatalina-island.jpg&sp=47e89022745b78f26f7692f98cffd7e1)
That white object under the ip in Phillip appears to be a yacht, about 50' long. The skipper would evidently be unafraid of rocks under his hull, for whatever reason. BTW there are shipwrecks along the coast of Catalina. I know scuba divers who have explored several of them. This boat's existence is evident by the fact that the object is entirely missing in the first photo, above, plus, it LOOKS like a boat. That's not scientific proof it's a boat, but very strong evidence in support of it being a boat. In case it makes any difference, I am speaking from personal experience having been there and that's about the scale of the scene, so the white object shaped like a boat probably is a boat in fact, not a piece of floating trash, for example.
Most photos of the west end make it look like it drops down steeply into the water but here you can see how gradually it slopes down. Any view of the coastline that shows the bottom portion of the island's elevation would necessarily also show this very gradual taper, like the shot above does, the one taken from Palos Verdes at 800 ft. el.
The rocks at the very tip of the point for the first three hundred feet are at most about 100' tall, which ought to be visible from San Pedro, but they are not. You can just barely see them from 800 feet above m.s.l. atop Palos Verdes hill, and only then with enlargement or if you look really carefully.
It would be nice to have a high resolution telephoto of those rocks from atop Palos Verdes.
-
"Cosmas was not particularly influential in Byzantium, but he is important for us because he has been commonly used to buttress the claim that all (or most) medieval people believed they lived on a flat earth. This claim...is totally false. Cosmas is, in fact, the only medieval European known to have defended a flat earth cosmology, whereas it is safe to assume that all educated Western Europeans (and almost one hundred percent of educated Byzantines), as well as sailors and travelers, believed in the earth's sphericity."
-
"Cosmas was not particularly influential in Byzantium, but he is important for us because he has been commonly used to buttress the claim that all (or most) medieval people believed they lived on a flat earth. This claim...is totally false. Cosmas is, in fact, the only medieval European known to have defended a flat earth cosmology, whereas it is safe to assume that all educated Western Europeans (and almost one hundred percent of educated Byzantines), as well as sailors and travelers, believed in the earth's sphericity."
Perhaps you forgot to mention the source for reference?
I have known very staunch Catholics from the Eastern Church who assured me that the claim saying medieval people believed the earth was flat is entirely a myth, because farmers and peasants didn't bother to think about any more than their local land or vicinity, whereas lords, kings and emperors who dealt with much larger areas were informed by direct knowledge of the spherical shape of planet earth, supported by their court astronomers and mathematicians.
Who would be more credible in regards to the overall shape of the world, Archimedes the genius mathematician of ancient Greece, or the Roman soldier who was sent being ordered to bring him back alive but who became frustrated by his refusal to leave his work behind, and so the soldier killed him? The dunce soldier would not be remembered for anything at all, except for the fact that he murdered the world's most prominent scholar and wisest man alive at the time.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.math.rochester.edu%2Fpeople%2Ffaculty%2Fdoug%2FUGpages%2FArchimedes_death.jpg&sp=0c60f6548b5513c7131886c847ac5730)
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Farts%2Fyourpaintings%2Fimages%2Fpaintings%2Fatt%2Flarge%2Fntii_att_609024_large.jpg&sp=2221976f542aa2acd83af375dc8cc4f7)
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmorbidanatomymuseum.org%2Fmword%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2Fm-archimedesdeath1b-1.png&sp=e1752aed14f81d3f8168c22818b2e00a)
-
Who says they don't make nice stuff anymore? This is artwork on papyrus:
Source (http://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Death/DeathIllus.html)
(http://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Death/DeathPapyrus.jpg)
The guy with the sword may have believed the earth was flat but the man he killed knew better.
A modern illustration of the death of Archimedes on a piece of papyrus from the Centro del Papiro in Syracuse, Sicily. Syracuse was a major supplier of papyrus in ancient times. A caption reads “L'uccisione di Archimede”.
-
"Cosmas was not particularly influential in Byzantium, but he is important for us because he has been commonly used to buttress the claim that all (or most) medieval people believed they lived on a flat earth. This claim...is totally false. Cosmas is, in fact, the only medieval European known to have defended a flat earth cosmology, whereas it is safe to assume that all educated Western Europeans (and almost one hundred percent of educated Byzantines), as well as sailors and travelers, believed in the earth's sphericity."
You believe a Catholic monk to be UNEDUCATED?? Really? And "sailors" to be MORE educated?
-
You believe a Catholic monk to be UNEDUCATED
caught you your royal smugness. He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
talk about something you actually know
neil obstat: he was a Coptic orthodox monk, mw2016 didn't even check Wikipedia (where i got the quote)
-
You believe a Catholic monk to be UNEDUCATED
caught you your royal smugness. He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
talk about something you actually know
neil obstat: he was a Coptic orthodox monk, mw2016 didn't even check Wikipedia (where i got the quote)
You got a problem with Eastern Rite 6th century Catholic monks?
:fryingpan:
-
I have experience doing surveying work at the coastline and it is obvious to anyone with such knowledge that the sand where the camera was set up on a tripod is about 10 feet above sea level. But the author of the video ignores that 10 feet and says his camera is 3 feet above sea level when that's only the height of his tripod.
The earth curve calculator uses the height of the viewer as a basis for the elevation of the distant object, and it is a very important factor. A difference of 10 feet on the viewing end makes a large difference on the elevation of the visible island at a distance.
....
I did not imply that he is faking the whole thing. What I said is that his interpretation of the video he legitimately made is all wrong. He ignores the elevation of his camera on the tripod by saying it's 3 feet when it's actually about 13 feet above mean sea level. He never used the term "mean sea level" perhaps because he's ignorant of the concept. Ignorance of important concepts is the beginning of incorrect interpretation.
Look at the position of the head of the surfers riding their surfboards at the two locations of the camera, and you can see how different they are when the camera is 13 feet high or right down by the water's edge -- which by the way is about 2 feet above mean sea level, not at mean sea level. If his camera was at sea level it would be drenched with water. You can dig a hole in the sand where he put his camera and find the water level where a puddle forms and it would be about one or two feet deep. The fact that the water is splashing up to that point is due to the wave action of the sea, which spills upward on the beach with each wave surge, about a foot or two higher than sea level, even at very low surf height.
.....
Go out and get some experience shooting elevations with a builder's level at the beach and then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.
Taking 13 feet into account the earth curve calculator still leaves 490 feet of the island under the water. Here again is the link for all those wishing to test it for themselves.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc
Here is the link for the video we were discussing for anyone who has become completely lost in this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs
That you have professional experience should be precisely why you should be able to see this more quickly than others. People with professional experience such as engineers, pilots, sailors etc. are sadly the most resistant, because it involves challenging the foundation of what they know, and looking ridiculous in front of their colleagues.
In reality though, it needn't be like that. The flat earth only makes small adjustments to the corpus of information that engineers learn, the rest is perfectly scientific.
-
It would be challenging to check what happens by shining a laser from a boat positioned at 5 miles closer or 10 miles closer to Catalina, since the boat would be moving around, making the laser hard to control.
Yes, it has to be on the ground on both sides and could not be on a boat on the water at all because of the swells.
-
HA! Somebody just did it - and PROVED the flat earth!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/cNEUOnlcIAQ[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/GBhDFO4NMrw[/youtube]
-
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
-
You got a problem with Eastern Rite 6th century Catholic monks?
Why would I think that pointing out that Cosmas was NOT CATHOLIC would make a difference, you don't read or think
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
-
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
Since I am prohibited from giving this a thumbs up, I will do the next best thing:
:rahrah:
-
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
Since I am prohibited from giving this a thumbs up, I will do the next best thing:
:rahrah:
PROHIBITED from giving my post a thumbs up? Seems the powers that be fear truth. I've heard it before about this forum but hoped otherwise.
-
You got a problem with Eastern Rite 6th century Catholic monks?
Why would I think that pointing out that Cosmas was NOT CATHOLIC would make a difference, you don't read or think
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
He was Oriental Orthodox not Catholic
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Cosmas is passingly accused in the preface of his book of being a heretic...because he did not recognize that Mary was the mother of God. It is clearly intended to keep Catholics from reading the book. But since Cosmas specifically referred to Our Lady in glowing terms, Catholic terms and very specifically as Theotokos, his writings clearly dispel the shadow purposely cast. Cosmas' writings prove an extensive CATHOLIC knowledge and unwavering loyalty to the teachings of the Church. The original copy of Christian Topography is kept in the Vatican library archives and was held as the definitive teaching by the Church on the subject for centuries. Again, the accusation is FALSE.
-
Here you go again, announcing "and PROVED the flat earth!" when there is no proof at all. They didn't even finish their experiment. Nor are they providing the necessary parameters of measurement accuracy required of all legitimate experiments.
They gave the video a title that is a big lie "Laser Test Proves a Flat Earth" when it does no such thing. Flat-earthers really enjoy hyperbole and bravado, apparently. They're out to save the world because everyone has been lied to and they're here to set the record straight!
HA! Somebody just did it - and PROVED the flat earth!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/cNEUOnlcIAQ[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/GBhDFO4NMrw[/youtube]
All this pretends to determine whether there is any curvature?
It's like putting a O from the printed page on the surface of a beach ball and attempting to see how curved the surface is over the diameter of the O.
The first video only goes out 2 miles, not far enough to overcome any discrepancy.
But they never mention discrepancy. They never calculate +/- accuracy or tolerance of error. If they were submitting this for a physics project they would fail because there is never any mention of tolerance of error or calculation thereof. So their measurements are not credible.
As they move outward into the sea, their gauge shows the level of the beam steadily rising while they say that it's remaining level. Any bias there? Why doesn't their beam get lower instead of going up? No answer. The beam relentlessly moves up as if there is nothing they can do to stop it. You can be sure they WOULD stop it if the COULD.
Like I said they don't give any measurement of discrepancy or give any tolerance of error. They probably don't know how to quantify their accuracy of measurement.
But in any event, even in the second video, they only get out to 6 km or 3.75 miles total distance. Then their laser disappears. They think that's because it's not powerful enough, not because it was hitting the lake surface, even while they claim it WAS hitting the lake surface earlier, when they blamed the telephoto lens for an illusion that time.
The title of the video is "Laser Test Proves the Flat Earth" but the video doesn't prove anything at all. They couldn't even finish their experiment because they lost sight of the laser at less than 4 miles out to sea.
From L.A. to Catalina it's 22 miles. That's a far better distance over which to measure earth's curvature than only 5 miles is. But it would take a more powerful light source.
-
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
Since I am prohibited from giving this a thumbs up, I will do the next best thing:
:rahrah:
PROHIBITED from giving my post a thumbs up? Seems the powers that be fear truth. I've heard it before about this forum but hoped otherwise.
At CathInfo you can't give unlimited thumbs up (or down) to one particular member. When your thumb count exceeds 1/3 of a member's total count your ability to up-thumb them (or down-thumb them) is disabled automatically. See the forum rules. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy or fear of the truth, as you say. It's to prevent unwanted bias and dog-pile, feeding frenzy behavior.
-
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
Since I am prohibited from giving this a thumbs up, I will do the next best thing:
:rahrah:
PROHIBITED from giving my post a thumbs up? Seems the powers that be fear truth. I've heard it before about this forum but hoped otherwise.
At CathInfo you can't give unlimited thumbs up (or down) to one particular member. When your thumb count exceeds 1/3 of a member's total count your ability to up-thumb them (or down-thumb them) is disabled automatically. See the forum rules. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy or fear of the truth, as you say. It's to prevent unwanted bias and dog-pile, feeding frenzy behavior.
Interesting.
I guess that means I am the only one whoever thumbs ups happenby's FE posts?
-
I recommend you don't retaliate by starting some kind of campaign like by PM for example, to get other members to follow your lead because spamming can get you banned, too, like irt was banned.
-
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
Since I am prohibited from giving this a thumbs up, I will do the next best thing:
:rahrah:
PROHIBITED from giving my post a thumbs up? Seems the powers that be fear truth. I've heard it before about this forum but hoped otherwise.
At CathInfo you can't give unlimited thumbs up (or down) to one particular member. When your thumb count exceeds 1/3 of a member's total count your ability to up-thumb them (or down-thumb them) is disabled automatically. See the forum rules. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy or fear of the truth, as you say. It's to prevent unwanted bias and dog-pile, feeding frenzy behavior.
Interesting.
I guess that means I am the only one whoever thumbs ups happenby's FE posts?
That is quite likely. It is very goofy how you cheerlead every word she says and quote her like a scholarly source. But then again--you think some shirtless tattooed animal proved the earth is flat with a flashlight. I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry for the sunken state of humanity.
-
Here you go again, announcing "and PROVED the flat earth!" when there is no proof at all. They didn't even finish their experiment. Nor are they providing the necessary parameters of measurement accuracy required of all legitimate experiments.
They gave the video a title that is a big lie "Laser Test Proves a Flat Earth" when it does no such thing. Flat-earthers really enjoy hyperbole and bravado, apparently. They're out to save the world because everyone has been lied to and they're here to set the record straight!
HA! Somebody just did it - and PROVED the flat earth!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/cNEUOnlcIAQ[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/GBhDFO4NMrw[/youtube]
All this pretends to determine whether there is any curvature?
It's like putting a O from the printed page on the surface of a beach ball and attempting to see how curved the surface is over the diameter of the O.
The first video only goes out 2 miles, not far enough to overcome any discrepancy.
But they never mention discrepancy. They never calculate +/- accuracy or tolerance of error. If they were submitting this for a physics project they would fail because there is never any mention of tolerance of error or calculation thereof. So their measurements are not credible.
As they move outward into the sea, their gauge shows the level of the beam steadily rising while they say that it's remaining level. Any bias there? Why doesn't their beam get lower instead of going up? No answer. The beam relentlessly moves up as if there is nothing they can do to stop it. You can be sure they WOULD stop it if the COULD.
Like I said they don't give any measurement of discrepancy or give any tolerance of error. They probably don't know how to quantify their accuracy of measurement.
But in any event, even in the second video, they only get out to 6 km or 3.75 miles total distance. Then their laser disappears. They think that's because it's not powerful enough, not because it was hitting the lake surface, even while they claim it WAS hitting the lake surface earlier, when they blamed the telephoto lens for an illusion that time.
The title of the video is "Laser Test Proves the Flat Earth" but the video doesn't prove anything at all. They couldn't even finish their experiment because they lost sight of the laser at less than 4 miles out to sea.
From L.A. to Catalina it's 22 miles. That's a far better distance over which to measure earth's curvature than only 5 miles is. But it would take a more powerful light source.
Neither has NASA proved curvature and since they lied utterly about earth's movement, it follows to consider more favorably the proofs available, the reasonableness that what we see is not curved and that it follows with all scripture passages that earth is flat. Technology has afforded us the ability to see from great heights that earth is not a ball. We know NASA is lying, at least about the moon landings, about movement of the earth and producing ridiculous CGI enhanced photos and paintings in order to forward the notion of the Big Bang, heliocentric earth and evolution. These things add up to a serious need to recall our former willingness to accept without proof their distortions.
-
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
Since I am prohibited from giving this a thumbs up, I will do the next best thing:
:rahrah:
PROHIBITED from giving my post a thumbs up? Seems the powers that be fear truth. I've heard it before about this forum but hoped otherwise.
At CathInfo you can't give unlimited thumbs up (or down) to one particular member. When your thumb count exceeds 1/3 of a member's total count your ability to up-thumb them (or down-thumb them) is disabled automatically. See the forum rules. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy or fear of the truth, as you say. It's to prevent unwanted bias and dog-pile, feeding frenzy behavior.
Interesting.
I guess that means I am the only one whoever thumbs ups happenby's FE posts?
That is quite likely. It is very goofy how you cheerlead every word she says and quote her like a scholarly source. But then again--you think some shirtless tattooed animal proved the earth is flat with a flashlight. I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry for the sunken state of humanity.
You may disagree with mw2016, but there is no call to accuse her of being in a sunken state of humanity. In fact, your choices in this thread prove you have motive of some sort. Probably ego. Especially since she has done nothing to deserve such a visceral reaction.
-
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
Since I am prohibited from giving this a thumbs up, I will do the next best thing:
:rahrah:
PROHIBITED from giving my post a thumbs up? Seems the powers that be fear truth. I've heard it before about this forum but hoped otherwise.
At CathInfo you can't give unlimited thumbs up (or down) to one particular member. When your thumb count exceeds 1/3 of a member's total count your ability to up-thumb them (or down-thumb them) is disabled automatically. See the forum rules. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy or fear of the truth, as you say. It's to prevent unwanted bias and dog-pile, feeding frenzy behavior.
Got it.
-
I recommend you don't retaliate by starting some kind of campaign like by PM for example, to get other members to follow your lead because spamming can get you banned, too, like irt was banned.
I recommend you don't retaliate either.
-
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
Since I am prohibited from giving this a thumbs up, I will do the next best thing:
:rahrah:
PROHIBITED from giving my post a thumbs up? Seems the powers that be fear truth. I've heard it before about this forum but hoped otherwise.
At CathInfo you can't give unlimited thumbs up (or down) to one particular member. When your thumb count exceeds 1/3 of a member's total count your ability to up-thumb them (or down-thumb them) is disabled automatically. See the forum rules. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy or fear of the truth, as you say. It's to prevent unwanted bias and dog-pile, feeding frenzy behavior.
Interesting.
I guess that means I am the only one whoever thumbs ups happenby's FE posts?
That is quite likely. It is very goofy how you cheerlead every word she says and quote her like a scholarly source. But then again--you think some shirtless tattooed animal proved the earth is flat with a flashlight. I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry for the sunken state of humanity.
You may disagree with mw2016, but there is no call to accuse her of being in a sunken state of humanity. In fact, your choices in this thread prove you have motive of some sort. Probably ego. Especially since she has done nothing to deserve such a visceral reaction.
My only motive is to try not to puke every time your cheering gallery of one cheers loud enough for 100 at your every word. It is laughable. I stand by what I say about sunken state of humanity. It is only in our sunken state of humanity that a shirtless tattooed animal with a camera can get YouTube famous and credible on a scientific question of this magnitude. Also, it is ridiculous that this nonsense has carried on 93 pages--you and mw2016 have no self-awareness of how silly you look.
I don't recollect ever using the ignore feature the entire 6 years that I have been on the forum. You and mw2016 are about to earn my first ignores. Science is mind-numbingly boring to me. Both coming from you as well as growing up coming from my fiend who wanted to be an astronaut. Whether the earth is flat or not is not something we can change--it's like a 93 page discussion about whether water is wet. But I am sure that you will proceed on wasting minutes of your life trying to speculate my "motive" like I am part of the conspiracy because of my outlook.
You want to convince me that the earth is flat? Send some clown that you can convince me to trust to the edge of it and get some pics. Fly over the edge and get some pics. It's not going to hurt anything to fly past the edge--the is no outer space, gravity, nor any of those other contrived NASA concepts to be concerned about.
-
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" John 3:12
Since I am prohibited from giving this a thumbs up, I will do the next best thing:
:rahrah:
PROHIBITED from giving my post a thumbs up? Seems the powers that be fear truth. I've heard it before about this forum but hoped otherwise.
At CathInfo you can't give unlimited thumbs up (or down) to one particular member. When your thumb count exceeds 1/3 of a member's total count your ability to up-thumb them (or down-thumb them) is disabled automatically. See the forum rules. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy or fear of the truth, as you say. It's to prevent unwanted bias and dog-pile, feeding frenzy behavior.
Interesting.
I guess that means I am the only one whoever thumbs ups happenby's FE posts?
That is quite likely. It is very goofy how you cheerlead every word she says and quote her like a scholarly source. But then again--you think some shirtless tattooed animal proved the earth is flat with a flashlight. I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry for the sunken state of humanity.
You may disagree with mw2016, but there is no call to accuse her of being in a sunken state of humanity. In fact, your choices in this thread prove you have motive of some sort. Probably ego. Especially since she has done nothing to deserve such a visceral reaction.
My only motive is to try not to puke every time your cheering gallery of one cheers loud enough for 100 at your every word. It is laughable. I stand by what I say about sunken state of humanity. It is only in our sunken state of humanity that a shirtless tattooed animal with a camera can get YouTube famous and credible on a scientific question of this magnitude. Also, it is ridiculous that this nonsense has carried on 93 pages--you and mw2016 have no self-awareness of how silly you look.
I don't recollect ever using the ignore feature the entire 6 years that I have been on the forum. You and mw2016 are about to earn my first ignores. Science is mind-numbingly boring to me. Both coming from you as well as growing up coming from my fiend who wanted to be an astronaut. Whether the earth is flat or not is not something we can change--it's like a 93 page discussion about whether water is wet. But I am sure that you will proceed on wasting minutes of your life trying to speculate my "motive" like I am part of the conspiracy because of my outlook.
You want to convince me that the earth is flat? Send some clown that you can convince me to trust to the edge of it and get some pics. Fly over the edge and get some pics. It's not going to hurt anything to fly past the edge--the is no outer space, gravity, nor any of those other contrived NASA concepts to be concerned about.
I have zero interest in proving to you the world is flat, nor do I care to respond to one who admits that he has no interest in the subject, but clearly, no grasp of it either. Do us all a favor and ignore us, or exit. Lame responses in the interest of no interest is the kind of fantasy children carry on about, especially the brats who have nothing better to do than pull the braids of the girl in front of them in school. Go to recess in peace.
-
Cosmas is passingly accused in the preface of his book of being a heretic...because he did not recognize that Mary was the mother of God. It is clearly intended to keep Catholics from reading the book. But since Cosmas specifically referred to Our Lady in glowing terms, Catholic terms and very specifically as Theotokos, his writings clearly dispel the shadow purposely cast. Cosmas' writings prove an extensive CATHOLIC knowledge and unwavering loyalty to the teachings of the Church. The original copy of Christian Topography is kept in the Vatican library archives and was held as the definitive teaching by the Church on the subject for centuries. Again, the accusation is FALSE.
He was a Mo·noph·y·site
a person who holds that in the person of Jesus Christ there is only one nature (wholly divine or only subordinately human), not two.
He was a heretic
Theotokos is often used in hymns to Mary in the Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic and Oriental Orthodox churches.
Did you know that The theological dispute over the term concerned the term ???? "God" vs. ??????? "Christ", and not ????? (genetrix, "bearer") vs. ????? (mater, "mother"), and the two terms have been used as synonyms throughout Christian tradition. Since St. Cyril of Alexandria used the term (he was Coptic) other Copts will use it, that is not an indicator of his being Catholic. The Coptic Church was in schism when he was a monk. He was a Heretic.
since your "book" can't tell the difference between God barer and Christ barer, it would seem not to be as authoritative as you claim
-
Cosmas is passingly accused in the preface of his book of being a heretic...because he did not recognize that Mary was the mother of God. It is clearly intended to keep Catholics from reading the book. But since Cosmas specifically referred to Our Lady in glowing terms, Catholic terms and very specifically as Theotokos, his writings clearly dispel the shadow purposely cast. Cosmas' writings prove an extensive CATHOLIC knowledge and unwavering loyalty to the teachings of the Church. The original copy of Christian Topography is kept in the Vatican library archives and was held as the definitive teaching by the Church on the subject for centuries. Again, the accusation is FALSE.
He was a Mo·noph·y·site
a person who holds that in the person of Jesus Christ there is only one nature (wholly divine or only subordinately human), not two.
He was a heretic
Theotokos is often used in hymns to Mary in the Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic and Oriental Orthodox churches.
Did you know that The theological dispute over the term concerned the term ???? "God" vs. ??????? "Christ", and not ????? (genetrix, "bearer") vs. ????? (mater, "mother"), and the two terms have been used as synonyms throughout Christian tradition. Since St. Cyril of Alexandria used the term (he was Coptic) other Copts will use it, that is not an indicator of his being Catholic. The Coptic Church was in schism when he was a monk. He was a Heretic.
since your "book" can't tell the difference between God barer and Christ barer, it would seem not to be as authoritative as you claim
To say that Cosmas was a monophysite or Nestorian is an accusation in the preface of his book "Christian Topography", yet even that preface writer admits that there is not enough information to prove such a thing in light of Cosmas' endearing use of the word "Theotokos", indicating that he probably was not a heretic but that his kind words for those heretics with whom he discussed the Church were brought on by an appreciation for the people, not their heretical view.
-
Cosmas is passingly accused in the preface of his book of being a heretic...because he did not recognize that Mary was the mother of God. It is clearly intended to keep Catholics from reading the book. But since Cosmas specifically referred to Our Lady in glowing terms, Catholic terms and very specifically as Theotokos, his writings clearly dispel the shadow purposely cast. Cosmas' writings prove an extensive CATHOLIC knowledge and unwavering loyalty to the teachings of the Church. The original copy of Christian Topography is kept in the Vatican library archives and was held as the definitive teaching by the Church on the subject for centuries. Again, the accusation is FALSE.
He was a Mo·noph·y·site
a person who holds that in the person of Jesus Christ there is only one nature (wholly divine or only subordinately human), not two.
He was a heretic
Theotokos is often used in hymns to Mary in the Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic and Oriental Orthodox churches.
Did you know that The theological dispute over the term concerned the term ???? "God" vs. ??????? "Christ", and not ????? (genetrix, "bearer") vs. ????? (mater, "mother"), and the two terms have been used as synonyms throughout Christian tradition. Since St. Cyril of Alexandria used the term (he was Coptic) other Copts will use it, that is not an indicator of his being Catholic. The Coptic Church was in schism when he was a monk. He was a Heretic.
since your "book" can't tell the difference between God barer and Christ barer, it would seem not to be as authoritative as you claim
To say that Cosmas was a monophysite or Nestorian is an accusation in the preface of his book "Christian Topography", yet even that preface writer admits that there is not enough information to prove such a thing in light of Cosmas' endearing use of the word "Theotokos", indicating that he probably was not a heretic but that his kind words for those heretics with whom he discussed the Church were brought on by an appreciation for the people, not their heretical view.
Here contradictory footnotes on the "heresy" of Cosmas, and while it appears they desire to accuse him of heresy, they are unable to decide which kind of heresy it is he holds, but not even those who are sure he's in heresy accuse him of holding what the Monophysites did.
From Christian Topography by Cosmas Indiocopleustes, Book II Footnotes:
155. 1 Cosmas, who was most probably a Nestorian, here hits at the Docetae and Gnostics, who held that the human nature of Jesus Christ was a semblance and not a reality; and hits also at the Monophysites, who maintained that Jesus Christ had but one nature, or that the human and divine were so intimately united as to form one nature only.
156. 2 Cosmas refers here to the Arian heretics, who held that the Son was not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father, but was created by an act of the divine will. The Nestorians have always maintained that Christ was perfect God and perfect man, and that these natures were distinct.
-
The point behind the book of Cosmas on the topography of the earth is that he spends a lot of time in opposition to pagan theory of round earth heliocentrism back in the 550's. So much for the misleading notion that Christians did not hold to a flat earth model or Cosmas' argument would be extraneous. Round earth geocentrism is one of the biggest lies in science today. Cosmas predates alternate round geocentric theory and proves that Christians never held the modern geocentric model.
-
It would your reading comprehension is not up to understanding Since St. Cyril of Alexandria used the term God barer (he was Coptic) other Copts will use it, that is not an indicator of his being Catholic.
-
he spends a lot of time in opposition to pagan theory of round earth heliocentrism back in the 550's. So much for the misleading notion that Christians did not hold to a flat earth model or Cosmas' argument would be extraneous.
This is a problem for CC and the others who like to claim "the Church never believed the earth was flat" when yes, as a matter of fact, they did!
-
It would your reading comprehension is not up to understanding Since St. Cyril of Alexandria used the term God barer (he was Coptic) other Copts will use it, that is not an indicator of his being Catholic.
Cosmas' words clarify any thoughts to the contrary as he knows more about the Faith that most Catholics today and speaks of it in great detail, tracing back to creation, Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, all the way through Christ, explaining about the prophecies regarding the Christ, proving not only His historical reality but how all promised by God is fulfilled in Him. He speaks of Our Lady in glowing terms, of the Fathers of the Church, the Eucharist, salvation etc. Rather than prejudge the man, read his book. That Cosmas is a knowledgeable and loyal Catholic is immediately evident. In fact, the footnotes and text itself come together to remove all doubt by those who cast shadows on him. Its funny to me how Catholics today cannot see the pattern suffered by great Catholics undermined by jealous naysayers and heretics when someone this brilliant comes along. Similar to the great Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
he spends a lot of time in opposition to pagan theory of round earth heliocentrism back in the 550's. So much for the misleading notion that Christians did not hold to a flat earth model or Cosmas' argument would be extraneous.
This is a problem for CC and the others who like to claim "the Church never believed the earth was flat" when yes, as a matter of fact, they did!
Indeed. The powers that be buried a lot of information, but thanks be to God the light was not totally extinguished. Cosmas should be on every Catholic's reading list. His apparent suffering at the hands of the pagan liars of his day resonate till now as his words bring to life salvation history with great enthusiasm and respect for Our Lady and the Almighty, not to mention his intense disdain for the perfidy of the jews, heretics and pagans.
-
A small insight to Cosmas weaving the tapestry of salvation history for us, describing the heaven and earth tabernacle, (Churches and Cathedrals also patterned like it) and the intimate relationship as a precursor to the greater and most perfect Tabernacle, Jesus Christ.
The book is eye opening and inspiring.
Here Moses, after he had been privileged to witness the terrible scenes on the Mount, is commanded by God to make the Tabernacle according to the pattern which he had seen in the Mount, this being a pattern of the whole world. For see, saith He, that |150 thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee in the Mount.32 Since therefore it had been shown him how God made the heaven and the earth, and how on the second day he made the firmament in the middle between them, and thus made the one place into two places, so he, in like manner in accordance with the pattern which he had seen, made the Tabernacle and placed the veil in the middle, and by this division made the one Tabernacle into two, an inner and an outer. The Apostle therefore declared the outer to be a pattern of this world, saying thus:For the first Tabernacle had ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a Tabernacle prepared, the first, wherein were the candlestick and the table and the shew-bread [200] which is called the Holy place,33 as if he said, it exhibits a pattern of the world, in which are the earth, and the monthly fruits and the luminaries (of heaven). And then when explaining the second Tabernacle he speaks thus: But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect Tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the Holy place having obtained eternal redemption;34 as if he said: Just as the high priest once a year enters into the inner Tabernacle through the blood of goats and calves, making propitiation for the people, so also Christ entered into the Tabernacle not made with hands, that is, into heaven, having once for all procured eternal redemption. And again: For Christ is not entered into the Holy place made with hands which is an image of the true, but into heaven itself; and again he says: For the law had a shadow of good things to come;35 for, as in an outline, by the inner Tabernacle he has signified the ascension of Christ after the flesh, and the entrance into it of just men. Wherefore he again admonishes us in these words: Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a great high-priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart;36 and again in declaring that Christ is in heaven he says: Whom God set forth to be a propitiation by his blood;37 since the |151 Propitiatory (Mercy-seat) was placed within the second Tabernacle. And many other such references are contained in the Epistles of the Apostle, and throughout divine scripture.
-
Cosmas Indiocopleustes Christian Topography, Book VII
Notes from divine scripture in mutual harmony concerning the figure of heaven and earth.
In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.98 He speaks of these as comprehending other things, and at the same time time signified the things that are within them and which were produced along with them. And again: The heaven and the earth were finished and all the host of them,99 as if again they comprehended other things, and the whole host of things were within them. And again: In six days God made the heaven and the earth and all that in them is,100 as if again all things exist within them, and they were comprehensive of them. And again: And God rested on the seventh day from all the work which he began to make;101 meaning that He began to create and ceased from creating; and again: This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth;102 meaning, this book records the coming into being of the whole world which is circuмscribed by heaven and earth. And again about its figure Isaiah says: He that hath established the heaven as a vaulted chamber and stretched it out as a tent to dwell in;103 the expression as a vaulted chamber has reference to the first heaven, but the other expression stretched it out as a tent, to the second heaven, which he speaks of as a house where people live and make their abode. And again David says: Stretching out the heaven as a curtain,104 speaking here of the firmament and speaking of it as a curtain, that is, as the coverings which made the roof over the Tabernacle, whatever these coverings were, whether made of hair or of canvas for the coverings above which roofed the Tabernacle are properly called ?????????? (leather curtains). He no doubt says: Who layeth the beams of his upper chambers in the waters:105 here more clearly speaking concerning the firmament itself as if it were a covering. But that there is nothing under the earth, is thus declared in Job: He hangeth the earth upon nothing,106 meaning that there is nothing underneath it. In like manner again in Job: Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened?107 meaning that |299 there is nothing underneath on which it is fixed. And David says: He hath founded the earth upon its own stability;108 as if he said [297] that it has been founded upon itself and not upon anything. But with regard to the heaven being fastened to the earth he declares in Job: He hath inclined heaven to earth; dust is poured out as earth,109 but I have cemented it as if with stone a square block; 110 intimating that the heaven is inclined to the earth and at its lower part fastened to it like a cube, that is, at the four corners.
The Tabernacle, as a whole, is therefore a pattern of the whole world, as the divine Apostle explains to us----speaking in these terms of the outer Tabernacle: For the first Tabernacle had ordinances of divine service, and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world;111 calling it of this world as being a pattern of this world; but with regard to the inner tabernacle he speaks thus: For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands like in pattern to the true, but into heaven itself;112 calling heaven the true holy place, and the inner tabernacle its antitype. Let the reader then consider the figure of the heaven and of the earth and their model ----i.e., the Tabernacle----how, to wit, that all are in harmony with the Christian doctrine----that there are two paths 113 of the whole world----this here and the upper, prepared from the foundation of the world. This here has been given in the present state to men and angels, and the upper is given, in the future state after the resurrection from the dead, to men and angels. For the famous sphere of the pagans does not harmonize at all with what Christian doctrine proclaims; but is adapted rather for those who hope neither for a resurrection of the dead nor for another state after it, but assert that the whole world is in an endless process of generation and corruption.
-
Cosmas states his belief in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Christian Topography book VII
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For it will be your part next to judge and compare each dogma and question, and to consider to which dogma and figure one, who is truly a Christian and wishes to live piously, ought to adhere. For I see much fallacy and guile on the part of the present writer of the fables, who bestows a spherical figure on the heavens and says that they shall again be destroyed. As for myself, dearest friend, I am of one mind with divine scripture, and I am confident that you also are such as I am-----a Christian following the divine scriptures, and the tradition of the |303 Holy Church when saying: I believe in one God, that is, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, the consubstantial Trinity, and in the Resurrection of the flesh, in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church----as also the Creed says: I believe that there will be a Resurrection of the dead and that there will be a life to come; and as the priests in like manner pray, using these words with reference to those presenting offerings: The thank-offering of thy servants receive on thy heavenly and estimable altar, on the amplitude of thy heavens, giving back to them for corruptible things incorruptible, for temporal things eternal, for earthly things heavenly----and for the dead these words: Give repose, O Lord, to his soul----collecting also together again his flesh on the day that thou hast appointed, according to thy true promises 120----with whom I also joining in prayer, add what is left over: Grant us of Thy grace to have before Thy presence a Christian and happy end-----for ever. Amen!
-
he spends a lot of time in opposition to pagan theory of round earth heliocentrism back in the 550's. So much for the misleading notion that Christians did not hold to a flat earth model or Cosmas' argument would be extraneous.
This is a problem for CC and the others who like to claim "the Church never believed the earth was flat" when yes, as a matter of fact, they did!
Indeed. The powers that be buried a lot of information, but thanks be to God the light was not totally extinguished. Cosmas should be on every Catholic's reading list. His apparent suffering at the hands of the pagan liars of his day resonate till now as his words bring to life salvation history with great enthusiasm and respect for Our Lady and the Almighty, not to mention his intense disdain for the perfidy of the jews, heretics and pagans.
Yes--Vatican has tried to alter and hide the truth. But it's not like all knowledge of any specific doctrine has been obliterated out of the minds of traditionalists. I am not aware of any non-fringe valid priests (SSPX, CMRI, sane priests of the Resistance (which is most of them save Boston), SSPV, etc.) who insist that flat-earth is doctrine. And I don't take the word of a couple of women, who shouldn't be teaching or preaching in the first place, whose main sources seem to be atheists, protestants, a "fallen away" Catholic, and some shirtless tattooed riff raff on YouTube, ramping up their post-counts at a staggering rate in this Chinese torture chamber that is this thread.
I believe you and mw2016 have combined to make this thread rival the low sensibilities and high ridiculousness of some of the threads started by InfiniteFaith and Soulguard f/k/a TCat.
-
he spends a lot of time in opposition to pagan theory of round earth heliocentrism back in the 550's. So much for the misleading notion that Christians did not hold to a flat earth model or Cosmas' argument would be extraneous.
This is a problem for CC and the others who like to claim "the Church never believed the earth was flat" when yes, as a matter of fact, they did!
Indeed. The powers that be buried a lot of information, but thanks be to God the light was not totally extinguished. Cosmas should be on every Catholic's reading list. His apparent suffering at the hands of the pagan liars of his day resonate till now as his words bring to life salvation history with great enthusiasm and respect for Our Lady and the Almighty, not to mention his intense disdain for the perfidy of the jews, heretics and pagans.
Yes--Vatican has tried to alter and hide the truth. But it's not like all knowledge of any specific doctrine has been obliterated out of the minds of traditionalists. I am not aware of any non-fringe valid priests (SSPX, CMRI, sane priests of the Resistance (which is most of them save Boston), SSPV, etc.) who insist that flat-earth is doctrine. And I don't take the word of a couple of women, who shouldn't be teaching or preaching in the first place, whose main sources seem to be atheists, protestants, a "fallen away" Catholic, and some shirtless tattooed riff raff on YouTube, ramping up their post-counts at a staggering rate in this Chinese torture chamber that is this thread.
I believe you and mw2016 have combined to make this thread rival the low sensibilities and high ridiculousness of some of the threads started by InfiniteFaith and Soulguard f/k/a TCat.
You are right, there are very few flat earth geocentric traditionalists that know earth is flat, but it isn't the word of a couple of women that speak truth. Science, history, and the Church herself have something to say. God reveals that the very rocks will cry out if necessary. Humility is in order here. Like those in the Novus Ordo who refuse to believe that usurpers twisted the trajectory of true faith, and set up a counter church within the walls of the City, Catholics must remain open to the possibility that there is more to know. Why beat on the messengers before you know? The messenger need not be a concern, but the message itself should be dissected carefully before anyone reject it.
-
Ten more pages and still nothing providing a shred of scientific evidence?
-
Ten more pages and still nothing providing a shred of scientific evidence?
No, no pictures yet.
-
Here you go again, announcing "and PROVED the flat earth!" when there is no proof at all. They didn't even finish their experiment. Nor are they providing the necessary parameters of measurement accuracy required of all legitimate experiments.
They gave the video a title that is a big lie "Laser Test Proves a Flat Earth" when it does no such thing. Flat-earthers really enjoy hyperbole and bravado, apparently. They're out to save the world because everyone has been lied to and they're here to set the record straight!
All this pretends to determine whether there is any curvature?
It's like putting a O from the printed page on the surface of a beach ball and attempting to see how curved the surface is over the diameter of the O.
The first video only goes out 2 miles, not far enough to overcome any discrepancy.
But they never mention discrepancy. They never calculate +/- accuracy or tolerance of error. If they were submitting this for a physics project they would fail because there is never any mention of tolerance of error or calculation thereof. So their measurements are not credible.
As they move outward into the sea, their gauge shows the level of the beam steadily rising while they say that it's remaining level. Any bias there? Why doesn't their beam get lower instead of going up? No answer. The beam relentlessly moves up as if there is nothing they can do to stop it. You can be sure they WOULD stop it if the COULD.
Like I said they don't give any measurement of discrepancy or give any tolerance of error. They probably don't know how to quantify their accuracy of measurement.
But in any event, even in the second video, they only get out to 6 km or 3.75 miles total distance. Then their laser disappears. They think that's because it's not powerful enough, not because it was hitting the lake surface, even while they claim it WAS hitting the lake surface earlier, when they blamed the telephoto lens for an illusion that time.
The title of the video is "Laser Test Proves the Flat Earth" but the video doesn't prove anything at all. They couldn't even finish their experiment because they lost sight of the laser at less than 4 miles out to sea.
From L.A. to Catalina it's 22 miles. That's a far better distance over which to measure earth's curvature than only 5 miles is. But it would take a more powerful light source.
Dear Neil,
You have yet to respond to the last video and how, even taking into account 10 feet more, there still remains 490 feet of the island which should be under the curve.
An important question seems to surface here. Do you agree with the scientific consensus for the circuмference of the earth being approx 25000 miles? Because, judging by your posts, you seem not to.
You have asked for proofs, but do not accept them when they are presented. Either you are being dishonest, or you do not agree with the consensus. The proofs we present presume that we are in agreement with the 25000 miles consensus.
Now to address, your points here above. These people do not pretend to be surveyors/engineers like you, but if you are fair, you will see that they do provide a certain awareness and allowance for discrepancies. Sure, to you as a professional, it might seem a bit rough around the edges, but in terms of what they are setting out to show it gets the point across.
As for the beam rising, you obviously did not watch the video close enough. They plainly admit that they adjusted the laser at a slight angle (in the second part of the second video). but in the calculations they take this into account. And the laser is where it should be (on the flat earth) when that is taken into account. If you are taking about the first part of the second video, then is SHARP and SUDDEN uprising, which is obviously based on refraction.
The proof of their experiment (second part) is that the while the laser is where it should be on the flat earth, it is not where it should be on a round earth. It is way, way off. On calm water, with medium temperature, with the distance they cover, this is pretty conclusive, that there is no curvature, as there should be according to the official figures.
As for the laser disappearing, it is not of much importance, because 4 miles is well above the margin of error as they show in their results.
Now, I think its fair to say (and honest people who watch the video will agree) that in this second set of videos you have misrepresented the presentation (I will presume through lack of attention rather than maliciously) and as for the first video about the island, the answer to my question will determine whether you misrepresented it also.
In good argumentation and logic, an ad hominem attack is when you attack the person. Right argumentation is based on facts and evidence.
-
My only motive is to try not to puke every time your cheering gallery of one cheers loud enough for 100 at your every word. It is laughable. I stand by what I say about sunken state of humanity. It is only in our sunken state of humanity that a shirtless tattooed animal with a camera can get YouTube famous and credible on a scientific question of this magnitude. Also, it is ridiculous that this nonsense has carried on 93 pages--you and mw2016 have no self-awareness of how silly you look.
I don't recollect ever using the ignore feature the entire 6 years that I have been on the forum. You and mw2016 are about to earn my first ignores. Science is mind-numbingly boring to me. Both coming from you as well as growing up coming from my fiend who wanted to be an astronaut. Whether the earth is flat or not is not something we can change--it's like a 93 page discussion about whether water is wet. But I am sure that you will proceed on wasting minutes of your life trying to speculate my "motive" like I am part of the conspiracy because of my outlook.
You want to convince me that the earth is flat? Send some clown that you can convince me to trust to the edge of it and get some pics. Fly over the edge and get some pics. It's not going to hurt anything to fly past the edge--the is no outer space, gravity, nor any of those other contrived NASA concepts to be concerned about.
Why are you posting on this forum if you won't even argue on the science? Neil is at least responding based on science, but insulting people simply makes you look ridiculous to intelligent observers. If you read the posts, you will see the flat earth is extremely scientific and intelligent. Simply saying that it is not because you have the majority with you won't change that.
If you want to open your mouth to attack us, then at least look seriously at the videos that neil and I were discussing. If you don't do that, then just cease to post on this thread.
Thanks and God bless.
-
This is a problem for CC and the others who like to claim "the Church never believed the earth was flat" when yes, as a matter of fact, they did!
I have never stated what i believe. I have pointed out that your reliance on one Coptic Orthodox Monk does not the universal consent of the Fathers Make. Most of the Fathers dismissed the Antipodal Theory of a Hollow Earth (now add in Augustine's quote so it makes sense in context) because in ancient times, the idea of subterranean realms seemed arguable, and became intertwined with the concept of "places" such as the Greek Hades, , the Christian Hell, and the Aramaic Sheol. The antipodes being a place opposite us on earth comes from the 16th century when a Hollow Earth theory was no longer held. Your claim that the Fathers were "for a flat earth" is laughable since the Greek and Latin Churches used Plato and Aristotle as philosophies to help convey theological concepts. Aristotle provided evidence for the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds by around 330 BC.
-
This is a problem for CC and the others who like to claim "the Church never believed the earth was flat" when yes, as a matter of fact, they did!
I have never stated what i believe. I have pointed out that your reliance on one Coptic Orthodox Monk does not the universal consent of the Fathers Make. Most of the Fathers dismissed the Antipodal Theory of a Hollow Earth (now add in Augustine's quote so it makes sense in context) because in ancient times, the idea of subterranean realms seemed arguable, and became intertwined with the concept of "places" such as the Greek Hades, , the Christian Hell, and the Aramaic Sheol. The antipodes being a place opposite us on earth comes from the 16th century when a Hollow Earth theory was no longer held. Your claim that the Fathers were "for a flat earth" is laughable since the Greek and Latin Churches used Plato and Aristotle as philosophies to help convey theological concepts. Aristotle provided evidence for the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds by around 330 BC.
The antipodal theory goes with round earth because it is the sphere Christianity combatted. People are not walking around with their feet opposite each other on either side of a globe, that notion is an outrage in and of itself. If they do, nothing is true. As you said, most of the Fathers dismissed the antipodal theory because as Cosmas indicates, it is absurd, and denies the passages in scripture which he goes into great detail prove earth is flat. And as I mentioned, it is contrary to reason. Plato and Aristotle were pagans and bought the pagan theories, so they have no place in this discussion. Aristotle did not prove round earth, but merely believed in it. We have plenty of empirical proof to show that earth is not a globe. The pagans who say otherwise have zero proof for their globe. Certainly nothing about the globe is reasonable, demonstrated, or Godly.
-
This is a problem for CC and the others who like to claim "the Church never believed the earth was flat" when yes, as a matter of fact, they did!
I have never stated what i believe. I have pointed out that your reliance on one Coptic Orthodox Monk does not the universal consent of the Fathers Make. Most of the Fathers dismissed the Antipodal Theory of a Hollow Earth (now add in Augustine's quote so it makes sense in context) because in ancient times, the idea of subterranean realms seemed arguable, and became intertwined with the concept of "places" such as the Greek Hades, , the Christian Hell, and the Aramaic Sheol. The antipodes being a place opposite us on earth comes from the 16th century when a Hollow Earth theory was no longer held. Your claim that the Fathers were "for a flat earth" is laughable since the Greek and Latin Churches used Plato and Aristotle as philosophies to help convey theological concepts. Aristotle provided evidence for the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds by around 330 BC.
With the greatest respect to your intelligence, you must not have done much (if any) research on Cosmas. You would have seen that he lived in the 7th century, and therefore could not have been schismatic as you state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_the_Monk
The distinction about the hollow earth vs flat earth is pretty arbitrary, because when you actually read what the fathers say in response to it, they are using the proofs that there is no curvature on the earth.
Now when you combine this with the modern scientific evidence, it becomes nigh impossible for any good Catholic to maintain that the earth is a globe. (Once they have done an honest investigation of the subject)
-
With the greatest respect to your intelligence, you must not have done much (if any) research on Cosmas. You would have seen that he lived in the 7th century, and therefore could not have been schismatic as you state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_the_Monk
did you read it yourself:FROM THE WIKI THAT YOU CITE "This article is about the 7th-century monk from Sicily. For the 6th-century Byzantine geographer who sailed to India, see Cosmas Indicopleustes."
2 different people
-
For those who were asking for a good explanation of sunrise and sunset on the flat earth model, this video gives an excellent demonstration.
The coin on the tabletop demonstration gives a very good scale explanation of how perspective works on the flat earth.
Watch from 7:45 until about 10:30 mark:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/G4kjtL0uG-c[/youtube]
-
I can't blame the flat-earthers for putting out such silly nonsense videos as they attempt to support their untenable hypothesis, but they really need to come up with a better model than this one which only makes them look bad, with egg on their faces.
For those who were asking for a good explanation of sunrise and sunset on the flat earth model, this video gives an excellent demonstration.
The coin on the tabletop demonstration gives a very good scale explanation of how perspective works on the flat earth.
Watch from 7:45 until about 10:30 mark:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/G4kjtL0uG-c[/youtube]
If I didn't know better I would think you were joking.
The video above at minute 8:00 - 8:30 has a man's hand holding a coin up on its edge, sliding it back and forth over the table top. The table top is flat, obviously, which is supposed to model the "flat earth." But the camera is positioned BELOW the table's surface, where the corner of the table can hide the coin when it's slid away from the camera.
If he were honest, he would have the camera at the same level as the table's surface because that would imitate what we would see if the earth were flat (which it isn't).
Of course, then he wouldn't be able to hide the coin with the table edge because the coin would always be visible, and that would "disprove" his flat-earth model. (I'm using the word in quotes in the manner flat-earthers use it.)
Also, the sun doesn't slide around touching the surface of the earth like that coin he's holding does.
More unscientific, nonsense gibberish from the low-level flat-earthers.
-
I can't blame the flat-earthers for putting out such silly nonsense videos as they attempt to support their untenable hypothesis, but they really need to come up with a better model than this one which only makes them look bad, with egg on their faces.
For those who were asking for a good explanation of sunrise and sunset on the flat earth model, this video gives an excellent demonstration.
The coin on the tabletop demonstration gives a very good scale explanation of how perspective works on the flat earth.
Watch from 7:45 until about 10:30 mark:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/G4kjtL0uG-c[/youtube]
If I didn't know better I would think you were joking.
The video above at minute 8:00 - 8:30 has a man's hand holding a coin up on its edge, sliding it back and forth over the table top. The table top is flat, obviously, which is supposed to model the "flat earth." But the camera is positioned BELOW the table's surface, where the corner of the table can hide the coin when it's slid away from the camera.
If he were honest, he would have the camera at the same level as the table's surface because that would imitate what we would see if the earth were flat (which it isn't).
Of course, then he wouldn't be able to hide the coin with the table edge because the coin would always be visible, and that would "disprove" his flat-earth model. (I'm using the word in quotes in the manner flat-earthers use it.)
Also, the sun doesn't slide around touching the surface of the earth like that coin he's holding does.
More unscientific, nonsense gibberish from the low-level flat-earthers.
Neil
will you please respond to what user flatearth was saying to you?
Or are you the one who has ignored him?
-
yes I agree. It would be nice for you Neil to not just attack in an ad hominem way, but to respond to him.
-
With the greatest respect to your intelligence, you must not have done much (if any) research on Cosmas. You would have seen that he lived in the 7th century, and therefore could not have been schismatic as you state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_the_Monk
did you read it yourself:FROM THE WIKI THAT YOU CITE "This article is about the 7th-century monk from Sicily. For the 6th-century Byzantine geographer who sailed to India, see Cosmas Indicopleustes."
2 different people
mistake accepted.
now would you like to accept yours?
-
yes I agree. It would be nice for you Neil to not just attack in an ad hominem way, but to respond to him.
I agree. It would be nice to see answers instead of mis-direction onto other topics, related or not.
-
Neil said: If he were honest, he would have the camera at the same level as the table's surface because that would imitate what we would see if the earth were flat (which it isn't).
That's not true because it shows that on a flat surface, the sun "comes up" from the horizon (the table representing the horizon) and manifests itself the exact same way it does on a flat earth. The camera being slightly below makes up for the fact the table isn't as long as it should be in relation to the size of the coin. This is an excellent demonstration for the intellectually honest person wondering how the sun presents itself and travels over a flat surface relative to the eye.
-
Neil said: If he were honest, he would have the camera at the same level as the table's surface because that would imitate what we would see if the earth were flat (which it isn't).
That's not true because it shows that on a flat surface, the sun "comes up" from the horizon (the table representing the horizon) and manifests itself the exact same way it does on a flat earth. The camera being slightly below makes up for the fact the table isn't as long as it should be in relation to the size of the coin. This is an excellent demonstration for the intellectually honest person wondering how the sun presents itself and travels over a flat surface relative to the eye.
The camera is not on the flat surface, is the point. We are on the surface of the earth.
If the coin is too big then use a smaller coin.
The demonstration is lousy because it does not show what the sun is like over the earth and we are not dug into a hole in the ground under the earth's surface.
-
Let's face it. The video doesn't show the coin rolling around on the table because it could just as well show a billiard table with a cue ball rolling around on it. Is that how the sun looks on a flat earth model?
When does the sun touch the surface of the earth? It looked like it was GOING to do that at Fatima in 1917 but it did not, after all. Fortunately for us!
-
Let's face it. The video doesn't show the coin rolling around on the table because it could just as well show a billiard table with a cue ball rolling around on it. Is that how the sun looks on a flat earth model?
When does the sun touch the surface of the earth? It looked like it was GOING to do that at Fatima in 1917 but it did not, after all. Fortunately for us!
He's making a point about perspective something apparently lost on you.
-
Others are whining at me for using ad-hominems, but here you are hurling ad-hominems at me.
Just for the record.
-
Let's face it. The video doesn't show the coin rolling around on the table because it could just as well show a billiard table with a cue ball rolling around on it. Is that how the sun looks on a flat earth model?
When does the sun touch the surface of the earth? It looked like it was GOING to do that at Fatima in 1917 but it did not, after all. Fortunately for us!
He's making a point about perspective something apparently lost on you.
What is it about perspective that the table with a coin can do?
The point of observation is below the table top. Where is a table top on the horizon? It's the surface of the earth. Which is convex but you say it's flat.
We see the sun go down over the horizon because the earth's curvature provides the horizon the sun, moon, stars and everything else in the sky (planets, asteroids, comets, etc.) goes down behind.
If you can't imagine what it would be like to stand on the surface of a really huge beach ball, for example, and watch what happens when a bird flies by overhead to go behind the beach ball, then it's a point of view YOU can't understand, apparently, or, if you can, you don't WANT to.
-
mistake accepted.
now would you like to accept yours?
what mistake? I never said that i believe in a round or a flat earth.
-
Let's face it. The video doesn't show the coin rolling around on the table because it could just as well show a billiard table with a cue ball rolling around on it. Is that how the sun looks on a flat earth model?
When does the sun touch the surface of the earth? It looked like it was GOING to do that at Fatima in 1917 but it did not, after all. Fortunately for us!
He's making a point about perspective something apparently lost on you.
What is it about perspective that the table with a coin can do?
The point of observation is below the table top. Where is a table top on the horizon? It's the surface of the earth. Which is convex but you say it's flat.
We see the sun go down over the horizon because the earth's curvature provides the horizon the sun, moon, stars and everything else in the sky (planets, asteroids, comets, etc.) goes down behind.
If you can't imagine what it would be like to stand on the surface of a really huge beach ball, for example, and watch what happens when a bird flies by overhead to go behind the beach ball, then it's a point of view YOU can't understand, apparently, or, if you can, you don't WANT to.
If the earth's curvature provided a horizon, that horizon would drop away as one rose up. It has never done that, but the horizon actually rises to the eye of the viewer no matter how high one goes. How can that reflect curve?
-
Let's face it. The video doesn't show the coin rolling around on the table because it could just as well show a billiard table with a cue ball rolling around on it. Is that how the sun looks on a flat earth model?
When does the sun touch the surface of the earth? It looked like it was GOING to do that at Fatima in 1917 but it did not, after all. Fortunately for us!
Neil is so intellectually dishonest it is shameful.
However, you bring up an interesting point about the 70,000 Fatima witnesses: what do you think is more likely - that the sun is only about 1,000 miles away on the flat earth, or that the sun is 93 MILLION miles away? I think those witnesses would give only one answer, and it isn't 93 million.
-
Let's face it. The video doesn't show the coin rolling around on the table because it could just as well show a billiard table with a cue ball rolling around on it. Is that how the sun looks on a flat earth model?
When does the sun touch the surface of the earth? It looked like it was GOING to do that at Fatima in 1917 but it did not, after all. Fortunately for us!
Neil is so intellectually dishonest it is shameful.
However, you bring up an interesting point about the 70,000 Fatima witnesses: what do you think is more likely - that the sun is only about 1,000 miles away on the flat earth, or that the sun is 93 MILLION miles away? I think those witnesses would give only one answer, and it isn't 93 million.
You're making this into ad-hominem central. Congratulations............NOT. If you keep it up, there won't be any point in attempting to communicate with you, since you're taking far too much indecent pleasure with hurling your low-grade and unfounded insults. Speaking of shameful.
Unfortunately, there wasn't any distance gauging equipment set up that day so nobody knows how many miles closer the sun got. Or, did it? We don't really know what happened, but we know what witnesses all saw. Over 100 miles away or more, nobody saw anything that day so the sun must not have moved, only APPEARED to move, which in itself is a miracle.
-
Let's face it. The video doesn't show the coin rolling around on the table because it could just as well show a billiard table with a cue ball rolling around on it. Is that how the sun looks on a flat earth model?
When does the sun touch the surface of the earth? It looked like it was GOING to do that at Fatima in 1917 but it did not, after all. Fortunately for us!
He's making a point about perspective something apparently lost on you.
What is it about perspective that the table with a coin can do?
The point of observation is below the table top. Where is a table top on the horizon? It's the surface of the earth. Which is convex but you say it's flat.
We see the sun go down over the horizon because the earth's curvature provides the horizon the sun, moon, stars and everything else in the sky (planets, asteroids, comets, etc.) goes down behind.
If you can't imagine what it would be like to stand on the surface of a really huge beach ball, for example, and watch what happens when a bird flies by overhead to go behind the beach ball, then it's a point of view YOU can't understand, apparently, or, if you can, you don't WANT to.
If the earth's curvature provided a horizon, that horizon would drop away as one rose up. It has never done that, but the horizon actually rises to the eye of the viewer no matter how high one goes. How can that reflect curve?
As many times I have provided demonstrations of how this fallacy of yours is nothing more than a fatuous contrivance of your imagination, you keep repeating it like a broken record.
The horizon does not rise to the eye of the viewer, never has and never will. But you can keep repeating the nonsense all you like, I guess, because it's not a criminal offense to repeat nonsense on the Internet.
The horizon recedes into the distance very predictably as the viewer rises up, and the level of view likewise sinks lower, does not rise up, which fact I have shown you several times on this thread and you just ignore it; you pretend the evidence doesn't exist so you can keep repeating your fantasy, which see. I have measured it with optical instruments so I know for a fact that it is true.
I have seen the horizon fade into the distance first hand, and I have provided photos of that happening for you to see but "it's apparently lost on you," in your own words. You just come back and regurgitate the fallacy you've been told, or whatever (maybe you've made it up) that, "but the horizon actually rises to the eye of the viewer no matter how high one goes." No, the horizon does not rise to the eye of the viewer. The horizon stays right where it is, unless the viewer moves to a higher elevation, then the horizon moves down, not up. The horizon settles down lower in the distance, because the elevation of the observer is moving up.
Perhaps you are unaware that you are agreeing with Newton who said that at infinity two parallel lines converge to a single point. That's right, you agree with Isaac Newton, who you disparage as a heretic in the next breath. Not too consistent, eh?
If you refuse to see, then I can't help you. If you refuse the help, then fine. I once met a smart aleck in Boston MA who couldn't manage to acknowledge the enormous chandelier hanging in the middle of the banquet hall. We were starting to talk about the nature of light, when I said, "...take that chandelier there, for instance..." and he said, "Chandelier? What chandelier? I don't see any chandelier!"
The smug Modernists of these latter days are like someone you go on a walk with in the evening and when you comment on the stars in the sky, they're staring at the ground through a magnifying glass, saying, "What stars? All I see is the grass on the ground, the bugs crawling around and the sand grains scattered about."
When someone refuses to see what's right there in front of their face, you can't have a conversation.
-
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
-
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
The following 'proof' annoyed me and I will not let it pass without comment even though I fully accept a global earth.
'In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it. He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet – a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept as it challenged a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun.'
Now when one included nonsense like 'a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept' that is pure propaganda. What does he mean by 'the Church?' Aristotelians yes, but not 'the Church.' The Church's astronomers were very capable of accepting the evidence and did when telescopes were available to them. And since when did 'the Church' defend the Ptolemaic order, everything in circles around the earth, it never did. The only geocentrism the Church defended was that the sun moves around the earth and that the earth lies at the centre of the universe. Nothing more, nothing less.
The only person who refused to look at Jupiter's moons was Cesare Creminini, an Aristotelian Freemason who hated Catholicism. He refused to give Galileo the satisfaction of confirming his discovery.
As for other planets being global, well that does not prove the earth is global. The whole point of the FEarthers is that the earth is different to all the others.
Anyway FErs, JohnAnthonyMarie has laid down the challenge for you.
-
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
And here are 10 more animated refutations....
10 more... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8)
Acceptable counter evidence must be based on philosophical realism and the scientific method.
Unbelievable that almost 100 pages have been wasted on this self-evident subject of first grade science....incredibile dictu!
Scripture doesn't mention FE and even modernists deny it. There's no basis in faith or science to promote or even discuss FE...especially when the world is now full of so many real belief crises.
It does provide a haven for the 'Ignored By' on other threads to provoke a response from the unwary browser with a claim similar to 2 + 2 = 5.
AMDG
-
Neil said: If he were honest, he would have the camera at the same level as the table's surface because that would imitate what we would see if the earth were flat (which it isn't).
That's not true because it shows that on a flat surface, the sun "comes up" from the horizon (the table representing the horizon) and manifests itself the exact same way it does on a flat earth. The camera being slightly below makes up for the fact the table isn't as long as it should be in relation to the size of the coin. This is an excellent demonstration for the intellectually honest person wondering how the sun presents itself and travels over a flat surface relative to the eye.
The camera is not on the flat surface, is the point. We are on the surface of the earth.
If the coin is too big then use a smaller coin.
The demonstration is lousy because it does not show what the sun is like over the earth and we are not dug into a hole in the ground under the earth's surface.
Neil,
For what is the THIRD time, I will ask you to respond to account for the 490 feet that would still be under the horizon even if we account for the extra 10 feet that you decide to add on.
The math doesn't lie. The flat earth is real science, but those attacking it are afraid of appearing stupid.
-
Neil said:
You just come back and regurgitate the fallacy you've been told, or whatever (maybe you've made it up) that, "but the horizon actually rises to the eye of the viewer no matter how high one goes." No, the horizon does not rise to the eye of the viewer. The horizon stays right where it is, unless the viewer moves to a higher elevation, then the horizon moves down, not up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is laughably false. I've seen for myself in a plane, from the top of a building and at the 2200 ft elevation on which I live, that the horizon always remains at eye level, no matter how high I go or how low I go. A greater majority taking this simple test can see it. Felix Baumgartner demonstrates it at 80,000 ft. Youtube sees it. My kids see it. My friends see it whether or not they understand earth is flat. My family sees it. My neighbors see it. People of this thread see it. Pictures prove it: https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/top-ten-undeniable-flat-earth-proofs/.
Since it is impossible to discuss a given basic with 'NO', the more elevated conversation about flat earth will also be impossible because he refuses to be reasonable. This isn't misunderstanding in his case, it is inflexible and purposeful determination to not see.
-
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
And here are 10 more animated refutations....
10 more... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8)
Acceptable counter evidence must be based on philosophical realism and the scientific method.
Unbelievable that almost 100 pages have been wasted on this self-evident subject of first grade science....incredibile dictu!
Scripture doesn't mention FE and even modernists deny it. There's no basis in faith or science to promote or even discuss FE...especially when the world is now full of so many real belief crises.
It does provide a haven for the 'Ignored By' on other threads to provoke a response from the unwary browser with a claim similar to 2 + 2 = 5.
AMDG
Cassander,
Welcome back to this thread. That's a lot of put downs you load into that post.
Since you were gone we have discussed this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs
Neil, even though a professional in the field, has yet to respond to where 490 feet of the island which is under the horizon goes. Do you want to have a go to explain it to us?
Perhaps you have not had it explained this way so far, but the strongest argument in favour of the flat earth and against the round, is based on something we agree on. The circuмference/diameter of the earth. We both say it is 25000 miles. Now if it is a sphere then the earth should curve at a fixed and certain rate. Here is a quick link showing this http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm
Great. but the problem is that we are consistently seeing objects that should be well below the horizon. To see this there a very useful link called the earth curve calculator https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
You can do the maths yourself if you don't trust it.
Now the video I linked to above is one of many, many others. Try for yourself. And make your mind up for yourself.
Now this IS philosophical realism par excellence, because these are things we can see with our very own senses. As for the scientific method, it is nothing more than distilled common sense. It is not a pretentious slogan used to bash people we think are stupid.
-
Anyway FErs, JohnAnthonyMarie has laid down the challenge for you.
He can start a new thread with that title, because this is a thread providing proof that the earth is flat, not that it is round.
-
mistake accepted.
now would you like to accept yours?
what mistake? I never said that i believe in a round or a flat earth.
Your mistake in saying that Cosmas was schismatic. Try to pay a bit more attention to your own posts.
-
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
Firstly, here is a very substantial set of proofs for flat earth. https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/top-ten-undeniable-flat-earth-proofs/
As for your specific questions:
1. Aristotle was a pagan and favored a pagan view of the cosmos, so his so called proof is suspect from the get go. Foucault’s pendulum has been proven not to show earth movement, besides which the Church has already spoken, saying earth does not move and bases it on scripture.
2. It has also been proven and you can prove it to yourself, that ships do not disappear behind the curve, but can be seen after disappearing with the aid of a camera or telescope up to 100’s of miles in the best conditions, but well beyond the needed curvature for a ball 25,000 mi in circuмference.
3. Constellations do not prove earth to be a ball. In fact, the constellations prove earth to be flat since the ball is supposedly moving in at least two different directions at different speeds than the stars themselves which would change their positions over time. That never happens.
4. Eratosthenes was also a pagan and favored a system since debunked by the Church. His parallel lines assume a distant sun, totally unproven, even debunked. Rather, shadows on a sundial have been used accurately for telling time and seasons, etc and actually reflect the flat earth they represent.
5. Naturally, one can see further from up higher, even on a plane, so this is no proof at all. In fact, the horizon remains at eye level as one moves to higher elevation proving earth is a plane because the horizon would fall away if earth were a ball. This proof is easily demonstrated from any airplane window seat.
6. This is no proof at all because planes can travel level for miles and never fall off the earth being as large as it is and travelling over the land masses for a reason. People live there. Not out where the dome meets the walls. In fact, this is a flat earth proof because planes cannot travel level on a ball without jetting out into space. The plane has to keep nose down at all times to keep up with the curve. Gyroscopes and reason prove this never happens.
7. Earth must be round because other bodies are round? That we are different than the planets in every respect is more a proof of flat earth. The other “planets” do not support life. By comparison for this supposed number 7 proof, are we to suppose earth has no atmosphere because the other heavenly bodies don’t?
8. Timezones exist not because the earth is round but because the sun lights only a portion of the earth at a time. The flat earth works the same way.
9. Gravity remains supposition and is no proof of round earth. Gravity cannot push, pull and maintain all at the same time. It remains a theory, not able to prove round earth.
10. Images from space do not prove round earth since many images are taken with a go pro cameras and many photos are cgi composites. In fact, images from space contradict round earth theory with the expansive view of a level horizon, a plane earth reality.
-
Anyway FErs, JohnAnthonyMarie has laid down the challenge for you.
He can start a new thread with that title, because this is a thread providing proof that the earth is flat, not that it is round.
He can start a new thread or read my response.
-
Now, JohnAnthonyMarie, your turn to provide your "scientific proof" reasonably disproving each of the ten points of the link I posted.
-
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
You replied...
1. Aristotle was a pagan and favored a pagan view of the cosmos, so his so called proof is suspect from the get go. Foucault’s pendulum has been proven not to show earth movement, besides which the Church has already spoken, saying earth does not move and bases it on scripture.
Can you please provide a credible reference to support your assertion that "Foucault’s pendulum has been proven not to show earth movement". I believe you are mistaken. Also, can you please provide the Church teaching that supposedly supports your notion that the earth is flat.
2. It has also been proven and you can prove it to yourself, that ships do not disappear behind the curve, but can be seen after disappearing with the aid of a camera or telescope up to 100’s of miles in the best conditions, but well beyond the needed curvature for a ball 25,000 mi in circuмference.
A camera or telescope has the potential to introduce barrel effect distortions, so I would not credit pictures as proof. Having raced very fast boats, I am witness to the fact that the boats I passed would thereafter visually descend below the horizon as the distance between my boat and their boat would increase.
3. Constellations do not prove earth to be a ball. In fact, the constellations prove earth to be flat since the ball is supposedly moving in at least two different directions at different speeds than the stars themselves which would change their positions over time. That never happens.
With regard to your assertion that there are "scientific proofs" supporting your delusional orientation, I would note here that you are providing opinion,which does not appear to be "scientific" in any manner.
4. Eratosthenes was also a pagan and favored a system since debunked by the Church. His parallel lines assume a distant sun, totally unproven, even debunked. Rather, shadows on a sundial have been used accurately for telling time and seasons, etc and actually reflect the flat earth they represent.
Again, I asked for "scientific proof". Your opinions here are not founded in fact.
5. Naturally, one can see further from up higher, even on a plane, so this is no proof at all. In fact, the horizon remains at eye level as one moves to higher elevation proving earth is a plane because the horizon would fall away if earth were a ball. This proof is easily demonstrated from any airplane window seat.
Again, not much of a scientific reproof. 1) Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough, and 2) the horizon is not clear enough at that altitude, to see the curvature of the earth. You can readily see this online from a number of reputable sources.
6. This is no proof at all because planes can travel level for miles and never fall off the earth being as large as it is and travelling over the land masses for a reason. People live there. Not out where the dome meets the walls. In fact, this is a flat earth proof because planes cannot travel level on a ball without jetting out into space. The plane has to keep nose down at all times to keep up with the curve. Gyroscopes and reason prove this never happens.
Are you going to provide "scientific proof" or are you just going to continue to blather nonsense here publicly? Seriously, step up to the plate with something scientific, please.
7. Earth must be round because other bodies are round? That we are different than the planets in every respect is more a proof of flat earth. The other “planets” do not support life. By comparison for this supposed number 7 proof, are we to suppose earth has no atmosphere because the other heavenly bodies don’t?
Are you going to address the issues with "scientific proof" or not?
8. Timezones exist not because the earth is round but because the sun lights only a portion of the earth at a time. The flat earth works the same way.
Again, "scientific proof", not your opinion, please. Can you demonstrate "scientifically" how your flat earth model works?
9. Gravity remains supposition and is no proof of round earth. Gravity cannot push, pull and maintain all at the same time. It remains a theory, not able to prove round earth.
Your not providing any science here, just saying stuff is not scientific.
10. Images from space do not prove round earth since many images are taken with a go pro cameras and many photos are cgi composites. In fact, images from space contradict round earth theory with the expansive view of a level horizon, a plane earth reality.
Again, not a scientific proof in any way. Come on, break out some science here.
...
Challenge: Can you provide the name of any reputable scientific community or institution that supports your flat earth theory?
-
Challenge: Can you provide the name of any reputable scientific community or institution that supports your flat earth theory?
Yes, the Holy Bible.
Interesting that you prefer your god of "reputable science."
-
This quote seems apt for today:
We are firmly convinced that the truths of faith cannot deceive us, and yet we cannot bring ourselves to trust to them; nay, we are far more ready to trust to human reasonings and the deceitful appearance of this world. This, then, is the cause of our slight progress in virtue, and of our small success in what concerns the glory of God.----St. Vincent de Paul
-
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
You replied...
1. Aristotle was a pagan and favored a pagan view of the cosmos, so his so called proof is suspect from the get go. Foucault’s pendulum has been proven not to show earth movement, besides which the Church has already spoken, saying earth does not move and bases it on scripture.
Can you please provide a credible reference to support your assertion that "Foucault’s pendulum has been proven not to show earth movement". I believe you are mistaken. Also, can you please provide the Church teaching that supposedly supports your notion that the earth is flat.
2. It has also been proven and you can prove it to yourself, that ships do not disappear behind the curve, but can be seen after disappearing with the aid of a camera or telescope up to 100’s of miles in the best conditions, but well beyond the needed curvature for a ball 25,000 mi in circuмference.
A camera or telescope has the potential to introduce barrel effect distortions, so I would not credit pictures as proof. Having raced very fast boats, I am witness to the fact that the boats I passed would thereafter visually descend below the horizon as the distance between my boat and their boat would increase.
3. Constellations do not prove earth to be a ball. In fact, the constellations prove earth to be flat since the ball is supposedly moving in at least two different directions at different speeds than the stars themselves which would change their positions over time. That never happens.
With regard to your assertion that there are "scientific proofs" supporting your delusional orientation, I would note here that you are providing opinion,which does not appear to be "scientific" in any manner.
4. Eratosthenes was also a pagan and favored a system since debunked by the Church. His parallel lines assume a distant sun, totally unproven, even debunked. Rather, shadows on a sundial have been used accurately for telling time and seasons, etc and actually reflect the flat earth they represent.
Again, I asked for "scientific proof". Your opinions here are not founded in fact.
5. Naturally, one can see further from up higher, even on a plane, so this is no proof at all. In fact, the horizon remains at eye level as one moves to higher elevation proving earth is a plane because the horizon would fall away if earth were a ball. This proof is easily demonstrated from any airplane window seat.
Again, not much of a scientific reproof. 1) Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough, and 2) the horizon is not clear enough at that altitude, to see the curvature of the earth. You can readily see this online from a number of reputable sources.
6. This is no proof at all because planes can travel level for miles and never fall off the earth being as large as it is and travelling over the land masses for a reason. People live there. Not out where the dome meets the walls. In fact, this is a flat earth proof because planes cannot travel level on a ball without jetting out into space. The plane has to keep nose down at all times to keep up with the curve. Gyroscopes and reason prove this never happens.
Are you going to provide "scientific proof" or are you just going to continue to blather nonsense here publicly? Seriously, step up to the plate with something scientific, please.
7. Earth must be round because other bodies are round? That we are different than the planets in every respect is more a proof of flat earth. The other “planets” do not support life. By comparison for this supposed number 7 proof, are we to suppose earth has no atmosphere because the other heavenly bodies don’t?
Are you going to address the issues with "scientific proof" or not?
8. Timezones exist not because the earth is round but because the sun lights only a portion of the earth at a time. The flat earth works the same way.
Again, "scientific proof", not your opinion, please. Can you demonstrate "scientifically" how your flat earth model works?
9. Gravity remains supposition and is no proof of round earth. Gravity cannot push, pull and maintain all at the same time. It remains a theory, not able to prove round earth.
Your not providing any science here, just saying stuff is not scientific.
10. Images from space do not prove round earth since many images are taken with a go pro cameras and many photos are cgi composites. In fact, images from space contradict round earth theory with the expansive view of a level horizon, a plane earth reality.
Again, not a scientific proof in any way. Come on, break out some science here.
...
Challenge: Can you provide the name of any reputable scientific community or institution that supports your flat earth theory?
I gave you 10 proofs earth is a globe. Read it first and if you are interested, we can talk.
-
Challenge: Can you provide the name of any reputable scientific community or institution that supports your flat earth theory?
Yes, the Holy Bible.
Interesting that you prefer your god of "reputable science."
How is it that you know my preferences? Your comment is false. And you are obviously unable to provide a reputable source for your position. Typical.
-
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
You replied...
1. Aristotle was a pagan and favored a pagan view of the cosmos, so his so called proof is suspect from the get go. Foucault’s pendulum has been proven not to show earth movement, besides which the Church has already spoken, saying earth does not move and bases it on scripture.
Can you please provide a credible reference to support your assertion that "Foucault’s pendulum has been proven not to show earth movement". I believe you are mistaken. Also, can you please provide the Church teaching that supposedly supports your notion that the earth is flat.
2. It has also been proven and you can prove it to yourself, that ships do not disappear behind the curve, but can be seen after disappearing with the aid of a camera or telescope up to 100’s of miles in the best conditions, but well beyond the needed curvature for a ball 25,000 mi in circuмference.
A camera or telescope has the potential to introduce barrel effect distortions, so I would not credit pictures as proof. Having raced very fast boats, I am witness to the fact that the boats I passed would thereafter visually descend below the horizon as the distance between my boat and their boat would increase.
3. Constellations do not prove earth to be a ball. In fact, the constellations prove earth to be flat since the ball is supposedly moving in at least two different directions at different speeds than the stars themselves which would change their positions over time. That never happens.
With regard to your assertion that there are "scientific proofs" supporting your delusional orientation, I would note here that you are providing opinion,which does not appear to be "scientific" in any manner.
4. Eratosthenes was also a pagan and favored a system since debunked by the Church. His parallel lines assume a distant sun, totally unproven, even debunked. Rather, shadows on a sundial have been used accurately for telling time and seasons, etc and actually reflect the flat earth they represent.
Again, I asked for "scientific proof". Your opinions here are not founded in fact.
5. Naturally, one can see further from up higher, even on a plane, so this is no proof at all. In fact, the horizon remains at eye level as one moves to higher elevation proving earth is a plane because the horizon would fall away if earth were a ball. This proof is easily demonstrated from any airplane window seat.
Again, not much of a scientific reproof. 1) Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough, and 2) the horizon is not clear enough at that altitude, to see the curvature of the earth. You can readily see this online from a number of reputable sources.
6. This is no proof at all because planes can travel level for miles and never fall off the earth being as large as it is and travelling over the land masses for a reason. People live there. Not out where the dome meets the walls. In fact, this is a flat earth proof because planes cannot travel level on a ball without jetting out into space. The plane has to keep nose down at all times to keep up with the curve. Gyroscopes and reason prove this never happens.
Are you going to provide "scientific proof" or are you just going to continue to blather nonsense here publicly? Seriously, step up to the plate with something scientific, please.
7. Earth must be round because other bodies are round? That we are different than the planets in every respect is more a proof of flat earth. The other “planets” do not support life. By comparison for this supposed number 7 proof, are we to suppose earth has no atmosphere because the other heavenly bodies don’t?
Are you going to address the issues with "scientific proof" or not?
8. Timezones exist not because the earth is round but because the sun lights only a portion of the earth at a time. The flat earth works the same way.
Again, "scientific proof", not your opinion, please. Can you demonstrate "scientifically" how your flat earth model works?
9. Gravity remains supposition and is no proof of round earth. Gravity cannot push, pull and maintain all at the same time. It remains a theory, not able to prove round earth.
Your not providing any science here, just saying stuff is not scientific.
10. Images from space do not prove round earth since many images are taken with a go pro cameras and many photos are cgi composites. In fact, images from space contradict round earth theory with the expansive view of a level horizon, a plane earth reality.
Again, not a scientific proof in any way. Come on, break out some science here.
...
Challenge: Can you provide the name of any reputable scientific community or institution that supports your flat earth theory?
I gave you 10 proofs earth is a globe. Read it first and if you are interested, we can talk.
I asked you to provide scientific proof. You are not able to do this, that is obvious, so you attempt to distract. Your flat earth position is silly. No one with common sense is going to believes your diatribe of delusion without scientific proof. The burden of proof in on you.
-
Simple question: Where has the Church taught that the world is flat?
-
Simple question: Where has the Church taught that the world is flat?
In the Holy Bible. The Scripture passages that reference the nature of God's Creation have been parsed in this thread already.
-
Simple question: Where has the Church taught that the world is flat?
In the Holy Bible. The Scripture passages that reference the nature of God's Creation have been parsed in this thread already.
The Church does not teach that the world is flat. Again, where exactly does the Church teach that the world is flat. Please provide an authoritative Church reference teaching explicitly that the world is flat.
-
JohnAnthonyMarie
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
You know what's funny about your article? There is ZERO science in it! Not a single experimental proof of ANY of its claims. Just a whole LOT of ASSumptions.
1. The moon
The shadow on the moon is not the earth's shadow. This is an assumption and has zero scientific proof. None. Also, the earth does not rotate, proven scientifically in several experiments (see Sungenis's film, if you like) or the Bible. Do you disbelieve the Bible in the matter of the STATIONARY earth? If so, then you have a real problem of your faith.
2. Ships and horizon
Ships and all other manner of large objects can be photographed at incredible distances that are mathematically impossible under spherical trigonometry given science's accepted definitions for radius and circuмference.
3. Stars
You merely display your ignorance of the laws of perspective if you claim stars are visible or not due to "curvature."
4. Shadows
Sundials everywhere work exactly the same way. This is because of the laws of perspective and because the EARTH IS FLAT. The earth and the sun are a literal timepiece - the earth is a literal clockface - the arrangement of the timezones and sunrise and sunset show this, and the division between day and night. This is also in the Bible:
"And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:" Gen. 1:14/DRV
5. Seeing farther from higher
This one is a complete joke. You can see farther because the earth is curved?? How ridiculous. No explanation of science given, just another assumption. You can definitely see farther the higher you get on the FLAT EARTH. Go to the top of the Sears Tower or ride in a plane.
6. Ride in a plane
Been there, done that - a LOT. Have the pictures to prove it. None show any curvature, whatsoever. I believe my eyes.
7. Other planets
The only other object that can be KNOWN to be a ball is the moon, because you can SEE it with your own eyes or binoculars. There is no ability to see the other "planets" to know what they are, other than lights. Also, just because the moon is a ball does not mean the earth is a ball. This is also in the Bible. Same goes for stars - the stars are lights, and are not "other suns." There is only one sun. No one has ever seen a star up close. Again, another ASSumption with no basis in scientific proof whatsoever.
8. Time zones
Only explainable by a rotating earth?? Again, another ASSumption which is IMPOSSIBLE. Impossible because the Bible says EARTH DOES NOT MOVE. Only the SUN MOVES. Which, therefore, gives a PERFECT explanation of time zones in the flat earth model. PERFECT. God's design is perfect.
9. Gravity
Again, an unprovable ASSumption that science itself acknowledges it does not understand nor know how it works. There is no gravity, nor any proof for it.
10. Photos of earth
There are no authentic photos of earth from "outer space." NASA is a liar, occultic organization that lied and fabricated the moon missions. We did not go there, you cannot get there, there were no pictures from Apollo. They are all FAKE. If you have any doubts, watch Bart Sibrel's film or Jay Weidner's film.
Also, the ISS picture in that article is HILARIOUS. You can go RIGHT NOW and watch the live feed from the ISS and every 90 minutes you will see the "night side." You will NEVER see any lights below - never. They have archived recordings you can also watch. There are no visible features AT ALL on the night side.
-
Simple question: Where has the Church taught that the world is flat?
In the Holy Bible. The Scripture passages that reference the nature of God's Creation have been parsed in this thread already.
The Church does not teach that the world is flat. Again, where exactly does the Church teach that the world is flat. Please provide an authoritative Church reference teaching explicitly that the world is flat.
Feel free to READ THE THREAD or do your own research to read the MANY places where the Bible calls the earth a CIRCLE or a COMPASS - and NEVER - never, EVER, a globe.
https://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n1511/mode/1up
-
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
You know what's funny about your article? There is ZERO science in it! Not a single experimental proof of ANY of its claims. Just a whole LOT of ASSumptions.
I never claimed that the article contained "scientific proof". Rather, I asked for "scientific proof" discounting the points made in the article.
You really have nothing to support your position.
1. The Church does not teach that the world is flat.
2. Science can not demonstrate that the world is flat.
-
And you are obviously unable to provide a reputable source for your position. Typical.
Your source:
"Popular Science"
A complete, and utter joke.
There is not one single shred of reputable or PROVABLE science in the "10 proofs" article you posted - merely STATEMENTS and ASSumptions. Not a single, solitary proof.
If you do NOT consider the Bible to be the ultimate REPUTABLE source, then you can hardly claim to be Catholic, in my estimation.
-
Simple question: Where has the Church taught that the world is flat?
In the Holy Bible. The Scripture passages that reference the nature of God's Creation have been parsed in this thread already.
The Church does not teach that the world is flat. Again, where exactly does the Church teach that the world is flat. Please provide an authoritative Church reference teaching explicitly that the world is flat.
Feel free to READ THE THREAD or do your own research to read the MANY places where the Bible calls the earth a CIRCLE or a COMPASS - and NEVER - never, EVER, a globe.
https://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n1511/mode/1up
Are you privately interpreting Holy Scripture? The audacity of that is beyond rational. Seriously, your opinion is the furthest from an authoritative Church source that you could possible provide. You are obviously ignorant of Church teaching.
-
1. The Church does not teach that the world is flat.
The Bible DOES.
2. Science can not demonstrate that the world is flat.
Science can.
-
You are obviously ignorant of Church teaching.
You obviously have not read the Bible.
It is not I that is ignorant in this matter. All of the flat earthers on this thread are very familiar with the passages in Scripture that describe the Creation God made - one that is NOT a ball, spinning, in a lonely corner of meaningless space.
-
You are obviously ignorant of Church teaching.
You obviously have not read the Bible.
It is not I that is ignorant in this matter. All of the flat earthers on this thread are very familiar with the passages in Scripture that describe the Creation God made - one that is NOT a ball, spinning, in a lonely corner of meaningless space.
Wrong again. Your are clearly showing the un-supportability of your position.
Look, either supply a reputable scientific source or authoritative Church reference that agrees with your silly flat earth proposition.
So far, you have avoided providing anything of substance.
-
Neil said:
You just come back and regurgitate the fallacy you've been told, or whatever (maybe you've made it up) that, "but the horizon actually rises to the eye of the viewer no matter how high one goes." No, the horizon does not rise to the eye of the viewer. The horizon stays right where it is, unless the viewer moves to a higher elevation, then the horizon moves down, not up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is laughably false. I've seen for myself in a plane, from the top of a building and at the 2200 ft elevation on which I live, that the horizon always remains at eye level, no matter how high I go or how low I go. A greater majority taking this simple test can see it. Felix Baumgartner demonstrates it at 80,000 ft. Youtube sees it. My kids see it. My friends see it whether or not they understand earth is flat. My family sees it. My neighbors see it. People of this thread see it. Pictures prove it: https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/top-ten-undeniable-flat-earth-proofs/.
Since it is impossible to discuss a given basic with 'NO', the more elevated conversation about flat earth will also be impossible because he refuses to be reasonable. This isn't misunderstanding in his case, it is inflexible and purposeful determination to not see.
Agreed.
This is my version of a thumbs-up here!
-
Look, either supply a reputable scientific source or authoritative Church reference that agrees with your silly flat earth proposition.
So far, you have avoided providing anything of substance.
Are you mentally deficient?? I just gave it to you!
WHY DON'T YOU READ IT?
Here, I'll give it to you AGAIN.
Isaiah 40:22
READ IT.
https://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n1511/mode/1up
-
You really have nothing to support your position.
1. The Church does not teach that the world is flat.
2. Science can not demonstrate that the world is flat.
Period. End of story. Thank you very much. Elvis has left the building.
-
40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
-
40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Perhaps you have an authoritative Scripture commentary to assist with your reading comprehension issue.
-
From 1610:
Read it and weep:
-
You may also like to read Proverbs 8:27:
-
Simple question: Where has the Church taught that the world is flat?
In the Holy Bible. The Scripture passages that reference the nature of God's Creation have been parsed in this thread already.
The Church does not teach that the world is flat. Again, where exactly does the Church teach that the world is flat. Please provide an authoritative Church reference teaching explicitly that the world is flat.
Feel free to READ THE THREAD or do your own research to read the MANY places where the Bible calls the earth a CIRCLE or a COMPASS - and NEVER - never, EVER, a globe.
https://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n1511/mode/1up
Are you privately interpreting Holy Scripture? The audacity of that is beyond rational. Seriously, your opinion is the furthest from an authoritative Church source that you could possible provide. You are obviously ignorant of Church teaching.
Yes, she is privately interpreting Scripture. Also, I see that she is still conveniently ignoring the use of the word "globe" in the Douay-Rheims because it doesn't suit her agenda and she prefers KJV and new church versions.
I think mw2016 is a duped drop-out who gets a kick out of participating in trailer park kitchen table world view discussions acting like the participants are really capable of making change w/o automation and whatnot down at the Family Dollar. But I suspect some of the flat earth "advocates" in this thread have the sinister agenda of discrediting the forum, trads, other "conspiracy theories," etc. ways of making us all seem like a bunch of snaggle-toothed buffoons. We even have a couple of new members with "flat earth" in their handle. I doubt their sincerity in the simple minded crap they're peddling.
It is astounding that this idiocy has reached nearly 100 pages.
-
happenby:
https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/top-ten-undeniable-flat-earth-proofs/
The link above is a TREASURE TROVE of information for those who SINCERELY SEEK THE TRUTH and want to learn more about the flat earth.
The ball earth is the greatest deception pulled on mankind - the deception that is the basis for all the other deceptions (evolution, heliocentrism, old-earth geology) that try to make the people believe there is no God. It is so pernicious, it is even possible to deceive the elect - they believe in the ball (Ba'al) earth.
-
qui sedet super gyrum terrae et habitatores eius sunt quasi lucustae qui extendit velut nihilum caelos et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
... above (?? ?al ) the circle of the earth. The word rendered 'circle' (??? chu?g ) denotes “a circle, sphere, or arch”
-
Also, I see that she is still conveniently ignoring the use of the word "globe" in the Douay-Rheims because it doesn't suit her agenda and she prefers KJV and new church versions.
No, you are the one who prefers the "newer" Bible - considering you are posting from the Challoner, of which the online version was published in Baltimore in 1899.
My link is to the 1610 Douay-Rheims - the ORIGINAL - which in no place ever, ever uses the word "globe." Ever.
Even Wikipedia exposes your Challoner being based on - gasp! - the KJV.
Consequently, this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate deuterocanonical), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible[4]
Read it and weep.
-
qui sedet super gyrum terrae et habitatores eius sunt quasi lucustae qui extendit velut nihilum caelos et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
... above (?? ?al ) the circle of the earth. The word rendered ‹circle‘ (??? chu?g ) denotes “a circle, sphere, or arch”
Nowhere is gyrum or chug translated as sphere - nowhere.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm
From chuwg; a circle -- circle, circuit, compass, vault.
gyrum - go around, circuit, circle, go about, ring
-
The "circle" reference I provided is from the Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary - an authoritative reference. Your personal opinion is incorrect, and really carries no weight whatsoever.
As long as we are quoting Wikipedia,
In the modern era, belief in a flat Earth has been expressed by isolated individuals and groups, but is widely considered to be pseudoscience.
and
The term flat-Earther is often used in a derogatory sense to mean anyone who holds ridiculously antiquated views.
-
JohnAnthonyMarie
The "circle" reference I provided is from the Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary - an authoritative reference.
A reference - an incorrect one - from 1859, whereas I posted a photograph of the original text FROM THE BIBLE from 1610. Better than Haydock's commentary. Case closed.
As long as we are quoting Wikipedia,
In the modern era, belief in a flat Earth has been expressed by isolated individuals and groups, but is widely considered to be pseudoscience.
and
The term flat-Earther is often used in a derogatory sense to mean anyone who holds ridiculously antiquated views.
[/quote]
In your opinion...which is naturally wrong.
-
The "circle" reference I provided is from the Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary
Here's an online version of the Haydock commentary, which nowhere says "sphere":
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1260.html
Ver. 22. Locusts, compared with the greatest animals. --- Nothing. Hebrew, "a curtain." Septuagint, Syriac, "vault, (Calmet) or chamber," kamaran.
-
I didn't provide my opinion. I only asked you to prove yours. Because you are unable to provide "scientific proof" or a "Church reference", your position is untenable. I have to agree with the previous poster, you are not here to discuss the topic, rather you are here for some other reason. I'm not going to waste anymore time on this topic. Any rational creature can see you for who you are, and this topic for what it is, silly.
-
I didn't provide my opinion. I only asked you to prove yours. Because you are unable to provide "scientific proof" or a "Church reference", your position is untenable. I have to agree with the previous poster, you are not here to discuss the topic, rather you are here for some other reason. I'm not going to waste anymore time on this topic. Any rational creature can see you for who you are, and this topic for what it is, silly.
Schönen tag John. If you read this thread you will see a lot of scientific evidence. This video is the most convincing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs . It seems to have been talked about a lot. Would you like to explain how we can see 490 feet of this island?
Another user wrote
"Perhaps you have not had it explained this way so far, but the strongest argument in favour of the flat earth and against the round, is based on something we agree on. The circuмference/diameter of the earth. We both say it is 25000 miles. Now if it is a sphere then the earth should curve at a fixed and certain rate. Here is a quick link showing this http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm
Great. but the problem is that we are consistently seeing objects that should be well below the horizon. To see this there a very useful link called the earth curve calculator https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial"
Now, back to my post.
You asked for Church Authority.
Church authority: (from the sentence of Galileo by the Holy Office)
"...you have made yourself suspect of heresy... as having believed and held to a false doctrine and contrary to Holy Scripture, that is:... that the earth moves and is not the centre of the world"
This sentence was approved by the Pope at the time.
Reference: Exorciser le spectre de Galilée - Abbe Philippe Marcille, Editions du Sel, 2014, pp 40
By the way, a Traditional friend of mine has opened up a very good forum for the discussion of flat earth . Here is the address. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/ If you have further questions go to the FAQs there.
-
This thread has brought out more trolls than any other that I remember. Probably a bunch of jews trying to discredit the idea of geocentrism. Notice how they intertwine and try to make geocentrism synonymous with flat-earthism.
-
This thread has brought out more trolls than any other that I remember. Probably a bunch of jews trying to discredit the idea of geocentrism. Notice how they intertwine and try to make geocentrism synonymous with flat-earthism.
We really are in a perverse situation where those doing the trolling, (such as abusing verbally the female users, not responding consistently to posts and scientific proof, telling others that they should just be trusted because they have professional experience) are actually the ones accusing us of doing the trolling! May God help us all.
Simply because you have a lot of posts on Cathinfo does not mean you cannot troll. GET OFF THIS THREAD IF YOU DONT AGREE AND LEAVE US ALONE!
-
This thread has brought out more trolls than any other that I remember. Probably a bunch of jews trying to discredit the idea of geocentrism. Notice how they intertwine and try to make geocentrism synonymous with flat-earthism.
We really are in a perverse situation where those doing the trolling, (such as abusing verbally the female users, not responding consistently to posts and scientific proof, telling others that they should just be trusted because they have professional experience) are actually the ones accusing us of doing the trolling! May God help us all.
Simply because you have a lot of posts on Cathinfo does not mean you cannot troll. GET OFF THIS THREAD IF YOU DONT AGREE AND LEAVE US ALONE!
I second that.
-
[
Now, back to my post.
You asked for Church Authority.
Church authority: (from the sentence of Galileo by the Holy Office)
"...you have made yourself suspect of heresy... as having believed and held to a false doctrine and contrary to Holy Scripture, that is:... that the earth moves and is not the centre of the world"
This sentence was approved by the Pope at the time.
Reference: Exorciser le spectre de Galilée - Abbe Philippe Marcille, Editions du Sel, 2014, pp 40
.
I see you flatearthers have now entered what borders on Protestantism, trying to worm flatearthism into Catholic Church teaching by false association.
The heresy Galileo was accused of explicitly included contradicting the UNANIMOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE FATHERS (a sign of infallible elucidation). The Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of [all] the holy Fathers. Since when was a flat-earth the unanimous opinion of the Fathers? At the time of Galileo's trial the earth was known by churchmen to be a globe. If there was even a hint that the Scriptures meant a flat-earth, the matter would have arisen in some form or another.
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day (1450-1506) [Copernicus's and Galileo's], very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
John of Sacrobosco's Sphere 1230:
THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.' (http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm)
The Bible's use of metaphor is also accepted in Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. For every person who lives on earth the sky is above and the earth directly below, even on a globe. Thus Jesus ascended into heaven has the same understanding to everyone, no matter where they lived on global earth, whether in St America or Nr Europe. I have no doubt flatearthers' use of this kind of metaphor to claim a flat earth is one of your tactics.
Now whereas the Church explicitly dismissed that a moving sun could be a metaphor for what is written in the Scriptures, that is the only heresy of its kind the Church ever ruled on.
Your position is beginning to smell of reformation now, suggesting it is heresy to not adhere to your interpretation of Scripture. I would suggest you keep your 'conspiracy theories' to the secular agenda and refrain from bringing it into the Catholic faith as some sort of divine revelation.
-
Your position is beginning to smell of reformation now, suggesting it is heresy to not adhere to your interpretation of Scripture. I would suggest you keep your 'conspiracy theories' to the secular agenda and refrain from bringing it into the Catholic faith as some sort of divine revelation.
There is no suggestion in this thread from any of the flat earthers that geocentrism is to be discredited - none whatsoever.
There is, however, a distinction that has been made, and that is that YOUR (and Robert Sungenis's) version of geocentrism (merely reversing the position of the earth and the sun, while keeping all other elements of HELIOCENTRISM intact) is in ERROR.
Your proposed version of geocentrism doesn't work according to the accepted laws of physics, and you have no scientific proof of it - whereas, there are many scientific observations that can be made which PROVE the geocentric FLAT earth model.
Perhaps, you, cassini, care to answer how you disregard the Bible's description of the flat earth, since you accept the Bible's description of the stationary earth?
Once again, from 1610 Douay Rheims:
-
This thread has brought out more trolls than any other that I remember. Probably a bunch of jews trying to discredit the idea of geocentrism. Notice how they intertwine and try to make geocentrism synonymous with flat-earthism.
The only one trolling is YOU.
You have called me more names than I can even count, and I don't return the "favor."
I have never seen a person more violently opposed to God's Truth in His Divine Revelation in the Bible. You act as though God's design of Creation is some sort of personal insult against you. It brings to mind a quote I once heard from an early Christian martyr:
"Only to the senseless, does the Truth appear to be an insult." St. Apollonius
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tnn.religion.catholic/Z7O9j_IZQ_4
-
Your position is beginning to smell of reformation now, suggesting it is heresy to not adhere to your interpretation of Scripture. I would suggest you keep your 'conspiracy theories' to the secular agenda and refrain from bringing it into the Catholic faith as some sort of divine revelation.
There is no suggestion in this thread from any of the flat earthers that geocentrism is to be discredited - none whatsoever.
There is, however, a distinction that has been made, and that is that YOUR (and Robert Sungenis's) version of geocentrism (merely reversing the position of the earth and the sun, while keeping all other elements of HELIOCENTRISM intact) is in ERROR.
Your proposed version of geocentrism doesn't work according to the accepted laws of physics, and you have no scientific proof of it - whereas, there are many scientific observations that can be made which PROVE the geocentric FLAT earth model.
Perhaps, you, cassini, care to answer how you disregard the Bible's description of the flat earth, since you accept the Bible's description of the stationary earth?
Once again, from 1610 Douay Rheims:
My reply was to deutschcatgh's;
'Now, back to my post. You asked for Church Authority.
Church authority: (from the sentence of Galileo by the Holy Office)
"...you have made yourself suspect of heresy... as having believed and held to a false doctrine and contrary to Holy Scripture, that is:... that the earth moves and is not the centre of the world"
This sentence was approved by the Pope at the time.'
Here we see a FER use a papal decree against geocemntrism to include global earth.
I can assure my version of geocentrism is not the same as Robert Sungenis. But we both agree that the heresy is confined to a moving sun.
'Accepted laws of physics.' Accepted by who, the Royal Society of London and yourself? If its Newton's laws you follow then you are in heretical error. I bet you cannot tell me if an apple falling to the ground is caused by a pulling cause or a pushing cause.
For the 100th time, there is no scientific proof for geocentrism nor heliocentrism. Plausibility is based on evidence. Evidence for geocentrism is greater. Proof is based on God's word.
I do not accept your evidence for a flat earth is superior to that for a global earth. but seeing as it has no theological consequence you are perfectly entitled to it, as I am to my global.
Now as regards the Bible, well the word you found may well be circle which seems to fit both FE and GE. It certainly does not mean FLATEARTH as described by yourself and others.
-
Your position is beginning to smell of reformation now, suggesting it is heresy to not adhere to your interpretation of Scripture. I would suggest you keep your 'conspiracy theories' to the secular agenda and refrain from bringing it into the Catholic faith as some sort of divine revelation.
There is no suggestion in this thread from any of the flat earthers that geocentrism is to be discredited - none whatsoever.
There is, however, a distinction that has been made, and that is that YOUR (and Robert Sungenis's) version of geocentrism (merely reversing the position of the earth and the sun, while keeping all other elements of HELIOCENTRISM intact) is in ERROR.
Your proposed version of geocentrism doesn't work according to the accepted laws of physics, and you have no scientific proof of it - whereas, there are many scientific observations that can be made which PROVE the geocentric FLAT earth model.
Perhaps, you, cassini, care to answer how you disregard the Bible's description of the flat earth, since you accept the Bible's description of the stationary earth?
Once again, from 1610 Douay Rheims:
My reply was to deutschcatgh's;
'Now, back to my post. You asked for Church Authority.
Church authority: (from the sentence of Galileo by the Holy Office)
"...you have made yourself suspect of heresy... as having believed and held to a false doctrine and contrary to Holy Scripture, that is:... that the earth moves and is not the centre of the world"
This sentence was approved by the Pope at the time.'
Here we see a FER use a papal decree against geocemntrism to include global earth.
I can assure my version of geocentrism is not the same as Robert Sungenis. But we both agree that the heresy is confined to a moving sun.
'Accepted laws of physics.' Accepted by who, the Royal Society of London and yourself? If its Newton's laws you follow then you are in heretical error. I bet you cannot tell me if an apple falling to the ground is caused by a pulling cause or a pushing cause.
For the 100th time, there is no scientific proof for geocentrism nor heliocentrism. Plausibility is based on evidence. Evidence for geocentrism is greater. Proof is based on God's word.
I do not accept your evidence for a flat earth is superior to that for a global earth. but seeing as it has no theological consequence you are perfectly entitled to it, as I am to my global.
Now as regards the Bible, well the word you found may well be circle which seems to fit both FE and GE. It certainly does not mean FLATEARTH as described by yourself and others.
A circle is not a globe.
-
confederate catholic said:
Quote:
mistake accepted.
now would you like to accept yours?
what mistake? I never said that i believe in a round or a flat earth.
Your mistake in saying that Cosmas was schismatic. Try to pay a bit more attention to your own posts.
You have to be the densest person on the face of the earth (good thing you think it is flat or you would fall off). I showed your reference was to the WRONG MONK and that Cosmas In. WAS COPTIC ORTHODOX. YOU ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG AND QUOTING FROM THE WRONG ARTICLE. THAT YOU COULD REFERENCE THE WRONG ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA SHOWS THAT YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE RUDIMENTARY ABILITY TO DO A SIMPLE SEARCH.
(https://65.media.tumblr.com/59cfdeeb476285edc1df7c07a1ac424b/tumblr_nl4lf6e42T1tuqpxlo1_500.jpg)
-
(https://img1.etsystatic.com/065/1/8037317/il_570xN.798706601_c5hl.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f5/76/48/f57648b5489f3cc64bfae3a41cca1805.jpg)
Hope that covers it.................................................
-
40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
The Church has always recognized earth to be flat and stationary. NASA and pagan scientists convinced the masses that earth is a globe and THAT IT MOVES. Catholics finally realized that the pagan globalists lied about movement but somehow, they cannot see they lied about the globe.
-
Simple question: Where has the Church taught that the world is flat?
In the Holy Bible. The Scripture passages that reference the nature of God's Creation have been parsed in this thread already.
The Church does not teach that the world is flat. Again, where exactly does the Church teach that the world is flat. Please provide an authoritative Church reference teaching explicitly that the world is flat.
Feel free to READ THE THREAD or do your own research to read the MANY places where the Bible calls the earth a CIRCLE or a COMPASS - and NEVER - never, EVER, a globe.
https://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n1511/mode/1up
Are you privately interpreting Holy Scripture? The audacity of that is beyond rational. Seriously, your opinion is the furthest from an authoritative Church source that you could possible provide. You are obviously ignorant of Church teaching.
Yes, she is privately interpreting Scripture. Also, I see that she is still conveniently ignoring the use of the word "globe" in the Douay-Rheims because it doesn't suit her agenda and she prefers KJV and new church versions.
I think mw2016 is a duped drop-out who gets a kick out of participating in trailer park kitchen table world view discussions acting like the participants are really capable of making change w/o automation and whatnot down at the Family Dollar. But I suspect some of the flat earth "advocates" in this thread have the sinister agenda of discrediting the forum, trads, other "conspiracy theories," etc. ways of making us all seem like a bunch of snaggle-toothed buffoons. We even have a couple of new members with "flat earth" in their handle. I doubt their sincerity in the simple minded crap they're peddling.
It is astounding that this idiocy has reached nearly 100 pages.
There's been no private interpretation of scripture other than those who prefer to accept the globalist lie of pagan scientists who claim earth is moving.
-
This thread has brought out more trolls than any other that I remember. Probably a bunch of jews trying to discredit the idea of geocentrism. Notice how they intertwine and try to make geocentrism synonymous with flat-earthism.
Flat earth IS geocentric. There is no history of a round, stationary earth. What you call geocentrism is really a hybrid of the heliocentric theory. Pagans invented the theory of the spherical earth moving earth. Modern pagan science taught for years that earth is a globe and moving. Flat earth in no way questions geocentric earth. But round earth is part of the original paradigm that started this whole debacle in the first place.
-
There is no reason to attack people about the flat earth. If you do not understand it, pray. If you are right, the flat earthers will get the grace to see. If you are wrong, you will get that grace. There is no reason to treat people poorly. Much of the proofs available take in depth searching for clear answers. In the meantime, the pagan doctrines of yesterday and of today are getting an "all clear". But the Catholic ones are getting slammed. That pattern alone speaks volumes.
-
40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
The Church has always recognized earth to be flat and stationary.
FALSE.
-
40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
The Church has always recognized earth to be flat and stationary.
FALSE.
In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8) infallibly declared that that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine...interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”
Corners are corners. Ends of the earth are ends of the earth. East is east and west is west. Corners, ends and place directions are impossible on a globe, but relative, or metaphorical, or symbolic, when interpreted on a ball, none of which answer to the Council of Trent on the interpretation of scripture.
History also denies your "false". You have no proof for it, except a bunch of pagan theories.
-
In the meantime, the pagan doctrines of yesterday and of today are getting an "all clear". But the Catholic ones are getting slammed. That pattern alone speaks volumes.
And even worse, the pagan doctrines are receiving the "all clear" from Catholics on this thread.
I have some good material I came across this weekend regarding the occultic pagan religion behind the heliocentric globe earth that I will post shortly.
-
Tonight we were gifted with another proof that the earth is not a ball on the NBC Nightly News.
I made a similar post about photos like this from the ISS earlier in the thread, and I asked Neil to respond, but he did not. Perhaps JohnMarie will like to take it on...
Tonight the news put up a photo taken today from the ISS of Hurricane Matthew.
I took this photo of my television screen to show all of you.
The hurricane is believed to be about 500 miles wide and is approaching the Bahamas at the moment.
Note the rate of curvature of the earth in this photo.
If you were to print out this photo, and continue to draw the line of the curved horizon to make a complete 360 degree circle, you will quickly discover that the circle would not be nearly large enough to encompass the geography of that side of the earth.
In other words, the scale is off - WAAAAYYYY OFF.
That photo shows about 500-600 miles, and you can immediately see that the circle drawn will never reach 25,000 miles of circuмference, nor would it even reach 8,000 miles of diameter.
-
Tonight we were gifted with another proof that the earth is not a ball on the NBC Nightly News.
I made a similar post about photos like this from the ISS earlier in the thread, and I asked Neil to respond, but he did not. Perhaps JohnMarie will like to take it on...
Tonight the news put up a photo taken today from the ISS of Hurricane Matthew.
I took this photo of my television screen to show all of you.
The hurricane is believed to be about 500 miles wide and is approaching the Bahamas at the moment.
Note the rate of curvature of the earth in this photo.
If you were to print out this photo, and continue to draw the line of the curved horizon to make a complete 360 degree circle, you will quickly discover that the circle would not be nearly large enough to encompass the geography of that side of the earth.
In other words, the scale is off - WAAAAYYYY OFF.
That photo shows about 500-600 miles, and you can immediately see that the circle drawn will never reach 25,000 miles of circuмference, nor would it even reach 8,000 miles of diameter.
At every turn their lie is exposed. :boxer:
-
Again, photos are distorted by barrel effect. Nice try though.
I'm sort of interested in your explanation of the Route du Rum race. How do boats race around the world on a flat earth? How do you explain the race course that the boats take through the southern seas? Your explanation should increase the entertainment value of this thread.
http://www.routedurhum.com/fr/s02_corporate/s02p00_course.php
-
Again, photos are distorted by barrel effect.
Oh, really? How so? I'd love to hear your explanation.
Therefore, are implying that it is NOT CURVED ENOUGH?? Well, that wouldn't work because that would make the entire circle even smaller.
Therefore, are you implying it is CURVED TOO MUCH?? Well, that would make for a flat horizon, now wouldn't it? Something more like...this.
-
Again, photos are distorted by barrel effect.
HA - even a basic photography article shows the effect is caused by the STRAIGHT LINES of the horizon in the "barrel effect." Therefore, if this phenomenon is happening in NASA's photo, it means the horizon is STRAIGHT.
As would be expected on a FLAT EARTH. FTW!
Thanks for playing!
http://cameras.about.com/od/technologies/a/What-Is-Barrel-Lens-Distortion.htm
-
[
Now, back to my post.
You asked for Church Authority.
Church authority: (from the sentence of Galileo by the Holy Office)
"...you have made yourself suspect of heresy... as having believed and held to a false doctrine and contrary to Holy Scripture, that is:... that the earth moves and is not the centre of the world"
This sentence was approved by the Pope at the time.
Reference: Exorciser le spectre de Galilée - Abbe Philippe Marcille, Editions du Sel, 2014, pp 40
.
I see you flatearthers have now entered what borders on Protestantism, trying to worm flatearthism into Catholic Church teaching by false association.
The heresy Galileo was accused of explicitly included contradicting the UNANIMOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE FATHERS (a sign of infallible elucidation). The Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of [all] the holy Fathers. Since when was a flat-earth the unanimous opinion of the Fathers? At the time of Galileo's trial the earth was known by churchmen to be a globe. If there was even a hint that the Scriptures meant a flat-earth, the matter would have arisen in some form or another.
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day (1450-1506) [Copernicus's and Galileo's], very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
John of Sacrobosco's Sphere 1230:
THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.' (http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm)
The Bible's use of metaphor is also accepted in Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. For every person who lives on earth the sky is above and the earth directly below, even on a globe. Thus Jesus ascended into heaven has the same understanding to everyone, no matter where they lived on global earth, whether in St America or Nr Europe. I have no doubt flatearthers' use of this kind of metaphor to claim a flat earth is one of your tactics.
Now whereas the Church explicitly dismissed that a moving sun could be a metaphor for what is written in the Scriptures, that is the only heresy of its kind the Church ever ruled on.
Your position is beginning to smell of reformation now, suggesting it is heresy to not adhere to your interpretation of Scripture. I would suggest you keep your 'conspiracy theories' to the secular agenda and refrain from bringing it into the Catholic faith as some sort of divine revelation.
Mr Cassini,
Please pardon if my english is not so good. I am a Traditional Catholic. I find offensive that you call me a protestant. But I forgive you.
The citation I gave does not say one way or another clearly that the earth is FLAT. I admit that. But one thing that we flat earthers and your geocentrists can agree on is that the earth does not move. In this regard flat earthers are also geocentrists, in the strict sense, and not the popular understanding.
As for the Fathers, even wikipedia does a good job on listing those who favoured it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth . If you go to the section of "early Christian Church" you will see.
There is still work to be done on compiling a list of those fathers in favour and those against. PERSONALLY, I have yet to come a across a Father who was in favour of the round earth favoured by certain pagans.
thanks you for reading.
-
confederate catholic said:
Quote:
mistake accepted.
now would you like to accept yours?
what mistake? I never said that i believe in a round or a flat earth.
Your mistake in saying that Cosmas was schismatic. Try to pay a bit more attention to your own posts.
You have to be the densest person on the face of the earth (good thing you think it is flat or you would fall off). I showed your reference was to the WRONG MONK and that Cosmas In. WAS COPTIC ORTHODOX. YOU ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG AND QUOTING FROM THE WRONG ARTICLE. THAT YOU COULD REFERENCE THE WRONG ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA SHOWS THAT YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE RUDIMENTARY ABILITY TO DO A SIMPLE SEARCH.
Errrr... I think the point being made is that there was no orthodox schism at the time that monk lived. Orthodox does not mean Eastern Catholic. It means schismatic.
-
[
Now, back to my post.
You asked for Church Authority.
Church authority: (from the sentence of Galileo by the Holy Office)
"...you have made yourself suspect of heresy... as having believed and held to a false doctrine and contrary to Holy Scripture, that is:... that the earth moves and is not the centre of the world"
This sentence was approved by the Pope at the time.
Reference: Exorciser le spectre de Galilée - Abbe Philippe Marcille, Editions du Sel, 2014, pp 40
.
I see you flatearthers have now entered what borders on Protestantism, trying to worm flatearthism into Catholic Church teaching by false association.
The heresy Galileo was accused of explicitly included contradicting the UNANIMOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE FATHERS (a sign of infallible elucidation). The Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of [all] the holy Fathers. Since when was a flat-earth the unanimous opinion of the Fathers? At the time of Galileo's trial the earth was known by churchmen to be a globe. If there was even a hint that the Scriptures meant a flat-earth, the matter would have arisen in some form or another.
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day (1450-1506) [Copernicus's and Galileo's], very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
John of Sacrobosco's Sphere 1230:
THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.' (http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm)
The Bible's use of metaphor is also accepted in Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. For every person who lives on earth the sky is above and the earth directly below, even on a globe. Thus Jesus ascended into heaven has the same understanding to everyone, no matter where they lived on global earth, whether in St America or Nr Europe. I have no doubt flatearthers' use of this kind of metaphor to claim a flat earth is one of your tactics.
Now whereas the Church explicitly dismissed that a moving sun could be a metaphor for what is written in the Scriptures, that is the only heresy of its kind the Church ever ruled on.
Your position is beginning to smell of reformation now, suggesting it is heresy to not adhere to your interpretation of Scripture. I would suggest you keep your 'conspiracy theories' to the secular agenda and refrain from bringing it into the Catholic faith as some sort of divine revelation.
Mr Cassini,
Please pardon if my english is not so good. I am a Traditional Catholic. I find offensive that you call me a protestant. But I forgive you.
The citation I gave does not say one way or another clearly that the earth is FLAT. I admit that. But one thing that we flat earthers and your geocentrists can agree on is that the earth does not move. In this regard flat earthers are also geocentrists, in the strict sense, and not the popular understanding.
As for the Fathers, even wikipedia does a good job on listing those who favoured it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth . If you go to the section of "early Christian Church" you will see.
There is still work to be done on compiling a list of those fathers in favour and those against. PERSONALLY, I have yet to come a across a Father who was in favour of the round earth favoured by certain pagans.
thanks you for reading.
The only criterion for 'Church teaching' is if ALL the Fathers agree on a Scriptural interpretation.
For example, 99% of all the Fathers interpreted the genesis 'day' as a normal day. But along came St Augustine and said it was all created at once.
I was objecting to the use of the 1616 decree in favour of FE. You admit that is not clear. I hope you recognise then that to try to say it does is leaning to Protestant thinking. No way do I think you are Protestant. Now not you deutschcath but others call globalists 'pagans,' when they really mean 'pagan thinking.'
A bit extreme but we are in good company. I would rather hang out with St Thomas Aquinas than a FEr.
-
Calcedon 451
Cosmas book written 550
HERETIC
-
Calcedon 451
Cosmas book written 550
HERETIC
Y'all called Archbishop Lefevbre heretic, too.
-
confederate catholic said:
Quote:
mistake accepted.
now would you like to accept yours?
what mistake? I never said that i believe in a round or a flat earth.
Your mistake in saying that Cosmas was schismatic. Try to pay a bit more attention to your own posts.
You have to be the densest person on the face of the earth (good thing you think it is flat or you would fall off). I showed your reference was to the WRONG MONK and that Cosmas In. WAS COPTIC ORTHODOX. YOU ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG AND QUOTING FROM THE WRONG ARTICLE. THAT YOU COULD REFERENCE THE WRONG ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA SHOWS THAT YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE RUDIMENTARY ABILITY TO DO A SIMPLE SEARCH.
Errrr... I think the point being made is that there was no orthodox schism at the time that monk lived. Orthodox does not mean Eastern Catholic. It means schismatic.
There isn't even proof enough for those who wrote the introduction of his book to even suggest Cosmas was a Coptic Orthodox or they would have done it. Biased as they were against him, the best they could do is suggest that he might have been a Nestorian...which was also debunked within the text of the book. During that heresy, Pope Saint Cyril I of Alexandria excommunicated anyone who followed the teachings of Nestorius, yet the Vatican holds the original copies of Christian Topography in the sacred archives where they were referenced by popes for years. Not Coptic, not Nestorian, maligned.
-
yet the Vatican holds the original copies of Christian Topography in the sacred archives where they were referenced by popes for years.
the Vatican also has:
A letter from Clement XII to the deputy of the seventh Dalai Lama
does that mean we should be Buddhists?
Learn some basic church history please.
which was also debunked within the text of the book. During that heresy, Pope Saint Cyril I of Alexandria excommunicated anyone who followed the teachings of Nestorius
again learn some church history COPTS ARE NOT NESTORIANS
-
yet the Vatican holds the original copies of Christian Topography in the sacred archives where they were referenced by popes for years.
the Vatican also has:
A letter from Clement XII to the deputy of the seventh Dalai Lama
does that mean we should be Buddhists?
Learn some basic church history please.
which was also debunked within the text of the book. During that heresy, Pope Saint Cyril I of Alexandria excommunicated anyone who followed the teachings of Nestorius
again learn some church history COPTS ARE NOT NESTORIANS
I never said anything of the kind, sir.
Cosmas' book was one the Church used to fight spherical moving earth heresies of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle which only later replaced earlier ideas from Christians, Chaldeans and Egyptians of a flat earth. Unlike your attempt to make some kind of illogical statement which had no relation to mine whatsoever, this proves your postulation isn't even comparable.
Although hostile to the Church, the famous work of Protestant Andrew Dickenson White, "A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom" quotes many historical figures from several ages regarding the antipodes and the flatness of the earth admitting, "The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum. pg 104
Also:
"The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city. Throughout the "ages of faith" this was very generally accepted as the direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form. St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's center; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Pope Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our inhabited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse: and in the pious book of ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the center of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox." pg 99
So, the first premise discussed here regarding Cosmas, namely, that no one thought the earth was flat except him is proven FALSE. The men listed here, as well as Cosmas were all highly regarded in Church history and all believed and defended flat earth geocentrism.
Keep 'em coming, I'm 0 for 10 or 20 by now and anyone reading along the way will get a good gander at what is really going on with the suffocation of the truth about flat earth.
-
Again, photos are distorted by barrel effect. Nice try though.
I'm sort of interested in your explanation of the Route du Rum race. How do boats race around the world on a flat earth? How do you explain the race course that the boats take through the southern seas? Your explanation should increase the entertainment value of this thread.
I couldn't help but to notice that not one of you flat earth 'scientists' are able to answer my question. Here, let me assist you; It is because the world is a globe and the southern courses are shorter.
This whole flat earth delusion is silly. Wake up.
-
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=1008&#p1)
Now, back to my post.
You asked for Church Authority.
Church authority: (from the sentence of Galileo by the Holy Office)
"...you have made yourself suspect of heresy... as having believed and held to a false doctrine and contrary to Holy Scripture, that is:... that the earth moves and is not the centre of the world"
This sentence was approved by the Pope at the time.
Reference: Exorciser le spectre de Galilée - Abbe Philippe Marcille, Editions du Sel, 2014, pp 40
.
I see you flatearthers have now entered what borders on Protestantism, trying to worm flatearthism into Catholic Church teaching by false association.
The heresy Galileo was accused of explicitly included contradicting the UNANIMOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE FATHERS (a sign of infallible elucidation). The Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of [all] the holy Fathers. Since when was a flat-earth the unanimous opinion of the Fathers? At the time of Galileo's trial the earth was known by churchmen to be a globe. If there was even a hint that the Scriptures meant a flat-earth, the matter would have arisen in some form or another.
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day (1450-1506) [Copernicus's and Galileo's], very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
John of Sacrobosco's Sphere 1230:
THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.' (http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm)
The Bible's use of metaphor is also accepted in Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. For every person who lives on earth the sky is above and the earth directly below, even on a globe. Thus Jesus ascended into heaven has the same understanding to everyone, no matter where they lived on global earth, whether in St America or Nr Europe. I have no doubt flatearthers' use of this kind of metaphor to claim a flat earth is one of your tactics.
Now whereas the Church explicitly dismissed that a moving sun could be a metaphor for what is written in the Scriptures, that is the only heresy of its kind the Church ever ruled on.
Your position is beginning to smell of reformation now, suggesting it is heresy to not adhere to your interpretation of Scripture. I would suggest you keep your 'conspiracy theories' to the secular agenda and refrain from bringing it into the Catholic faith as some sort of divine revelation.
I've been away for a while and just now found your post above, cassini.
Just wanted you to know that it's a refreshing sight to see something that actually makes sense. Thank you.
-
Calcedon 451
Cosmas book written 550
HERETIC
Y'all called Archbishop Lefevbre heretic, too.
Saying goodbye to standard English now?
-
Neil and John,
Please stop trolling our thread. If you can't be civil then don't come on this thread. You are being extremely abusive and insulting.
please go away.
-
Calcedon 451
Cosmas book written 550
HERETIC
I think this guy is joking. Happenby, don't fall for his bait.
-
Neil and John,
Please stop trolling our thread. If you can't be civil then don't come on this thread. You are being extremely abusive and insulting.
please go away.
I have not (and will not) read over the entire 105 page thread. That's 1,050 posts.
So I just read over the last couple pages; I saw nothing objectionable by either of those men.
But now that we've brought up "trolling", I'll say: Neil Obstat and JohnAnthony have been members much longer than you. In a dispute, I'd be inclined to side with them against some new member with a strange name.
Talk about "having a lot of nerve". It's like sneaking into a dinner buffet and being super difficult with the employees (demanding to see the manager, etc.) Or crashing a wedding, and being extremely boisterous and vocal (talking about the groom during the toasts). (Ordinarily, a person who doesn't belong somewhere, or is doing something wrong, would tend to keep his head down and keep a low profile)
P.S. It's not "your thread", nor is the thread owned by any small group of people. It's 100% the property of Matthew, to be used as I see fit.
I actually got banned from Fisheaters in 2007 for refusing to stay out of "some woman's thread". She asked me to leave, and I refused. I was only spouting Catholic doctrine in said thread. Naturally the woman in question was one of the female owner's friends on that very female-dominated forum. Oh well.
-
[
The only criterion for 'Church teaching' is if ALL the Fathers agree on a Scriptural interpretation.
For example, 99% of all the Fathers interpreted the genesis 'day' as a normal day. But along came St Augustine and said it was all created at once.
I was objecting to the use of the 1616 decree in favour of FE. You admit that is not clear. I hope you recognise then that to try to say it does is leaning to Protestant thinking. No way do I think you are Protestant. Now not you deutschcath but others call globalists 'pagans,' when they really mean 'pagan thinking.'
A bit extreme but we are in good company. I would rather hang out with St Thomas Aquinas than a FEr.
Mr Cassini,
Thanks for the response. I was responding to another user also who had asked to provide authority. The Fathers are an authority, the sentence of Galileo is an authority.
What you are talking about is when something is infallibly defined.
About the 1616 declaration. When I said "not clearly", I should have really said not explicitly. The statement is clear. But do remember the Church could have gone further and said that it was flat. There is no citation to my knowledge of the Fathers that goes against the flat earth. There is one indifferent quote of St. Basil. St. Thomas in passing mentions how Aristotle was against it, but it is hardly a definitive statement.
So someday the Church could pronounce more explicitly and you might be a little embarrassed.
Have you read the writings of the Fathers on the Flat earth? Are they protestant? They are very clear.
Here is one, taken from wikipedia :
Lactantius, Christian writer and advisor to the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine, ridiculed the notion of the Antipodes, inhabited by people "whose footsteps are higher than their heads". After presenting some arguments he attributes to advocates for a spherical heaven and Earth, he writes:
But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies that are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another
Scary eh?
-
Quotes For Johnanthonymarie alone:
Your explanation should increase the entertainment value of this thread. (Insulting in the extreme)
rather you are here for some other reason (Calumnious)
Any rational creature can see you for who you are (same)
Period. End of story. Thank you very much. Elvis has left the building. (mocking)
So far, you have avoided providing anything of substance. (deliberately misrepresenting)
And I haven't even got to do Neil yet....
Do I need to? People of good will can see these guys are trolls. Please, both of you, (if you are different people) GO AWAY and let us discuss flat earth in peace.
-
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Please provide your "scientific proof" disproving each of the ten points in the above article.
And here are 10 more animated refutations....
10 more... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8)
Acceptable counter evidence must be based on philosophical realism and the scientific method.
Unbelievable that almost 100 pages have been wasted on this self-evident subject of first grade science....incredibile dictu!
Scripture doesn't mention FE and even modernists deny it. There's no basis in faith or science to promote or even discuss FE...especially when the world is now full of so many real belief crises.
It does provide a haven for the 'Ignored By' on other threads to provoke a response from the unwary browser with a claim similar to 2 + 2 = 5.
AMDG
Cassander,
Welcome back to this thread. That's a lot of put downs you load into that post.
Since you were gone we have discussed this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs)
Neil, even though a professional in the field, has yet to respond to where 490 feet of the island which is under the horizon goes. Do you want to have a go to explain it to us?
Perhaps you have not had it explained this way so far, but the strongest argument in favour of the flat earth and against the round, is based on something we agree on. The circuмference/diameter of the earth. We both say it is 25000 miles. Now if it is a sphere then the earth should curve at a fixed and certain rate. Here is a quick link showing this http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm
Great. but the problem is that we are consistently seeing objects that should be well below the horizon. To see this there a very useful link called the earth curve calculator https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
You can do the maths yourself if you don't trust it.
Now the video I linked to above is one of many, many others. Try for yourself. And make your mind up for yourself.
Now this IS philosophical realism par excellence, because these are things we can see with our very own senses. As for the scientific method, it is nothing more than distilled common sense. It is not a pretentious slogan used to bash people we think are stupid.
Off to a ominous start, fe.... the very first word is an error...CassandAr, s'il vous plait.
You have ignored the 20 or so pro-globe arguments and proposed your own 16 'over the horizon' videos. This response is the style of the FE folks (and pols) ...ignore facts and put up more flak. This must change to a formal and fair protocol if dialog is to have any value.
So...a few rules for the thread title/hypothesis -
Given: Science Proves that Earth is Not a Globe
1. No theological proofs may be offered.
2. Proof of the hypothesis does not prove the Earth is Flat...only that it is not a globe. Logic can be cruel...
3. Both members - fe pro side and CR con side - must only present specific evidence allowed by the epistemology and logic of scholasticism and the sci. method.
4. The pro member fe must advocate everything required by the topic itself, with no revision of position.
5. Assertions must provide enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it ....= 'reasonable belief'. Facts must be accurate.
6. Each posting has 3 parts:
Q?: any fair, clear questions that have a direct bearing on the issue. ..no new statements, comments, or rhetorical questions.
Reb: Rebuttal of prior postings ...no new arguments.
New: New arguments
7. All arguments must be addressed.
The fairness of the rules does impose a hefty burden on FE fans, who are accustomed to ignore the reality challenges and rely on their volume of videos and internet bottom-fishing to exhaust any rational resistance. Let's avoid a repeat of the Trump vs. Holt/Hillary debate.
*******************
This is how it's done: :
fe post 1:
New: The first experimental proof is the Anacapa video : fe1 = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs
The next tests are the 15 Zen astronomy experiments.... at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm
to be labeled fe2->fe16
CR post 1:
Q?: re sacred texts - Published in 1881, they are 135 yrs old... so why do we ignore all tech advances in optics since then....lasers, zoom lenses, laws of refraction..?
If the sci method is just common sense, then why do the FE fanatics make the uncommon choice of a Flat Earth?
Rebut: re fe1-
1- 1:06 marker: the diagram assumes a st line path of a light ray between target and viewer (on Miramar beach)
2- 1:19: diagram in error...swells of 5 ft are peak to valley compared to calm .... so the distance above calm water is 2.5 ft, not 5 ft.
3- 1:25: the island image is covered with haze...a high humidity indicator.
4- 3:30 : the 560 ft elevation image is sharper => less humidity along a higher light path.
5- 5:30: camera not just at sea level but in the sea => wet lens distorts the image.
The conditions indicate image distortion by air temperature inversion layers, common over bodies of water.
The ability to see over the horizon is a favorite ploy of FE fans…FE makes the false assumption that light ALWAYS travels in a st. line. To say that light always travels a straight line is to believe that a straw really bends in a glass of water.
The view beyond the horizon of the Earth's curvature is caused by warm air over cold, the reverse of the normal decrease of temp with altitude.A layer of warm air above cold air causes light refraction. In this case the island image is lifted above the actual location of the object to form a superior image.
Several types of images can be formed… One type - the superior image -forms an erect view of the object above its actual position.
For the superior mirage to be seen, the air close to the surface must be much colder than the air above it. This condition is common over snow, ice and cold water surfaces. When very cold air lies below warm air, light rays are bent downward toward the surface, thus tricking our eyes into thinking an object is located higher or is taller in appearance than it actually is.
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/graphics/photos/supmirg2.gif
Superior Mirage allows sight beyond the horizon: scale is greatly exaggerated.
The superior mirage can also make objects appear to be floating in the air or cause objects actually located below the horizon to appear above it, a condition called looming.
Sunset example http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/graphics/photos/sunrefract.gif
The superior mirage can also cause objects appear to be taller than they actually are, called towering, or shorter, a condition termed stooping.
For general coverage of mirages: http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/mirage1.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mz51fyJx94
btw: The earth curvature calculator can't be used where the light path is not linear. In this video it shows that a mirage is present.
On a winter day in Cal., with less chance of temperature layering, you won't see the islands...they will be below the true horizon.
re fe2 to fe16: The above analysis of temp inversion over water applies to all 14 exps, except fe11, the balloon test.
The density of air decreases with altitude so the light path goes from a large index of refraction near the ground to a low value at the balloon. This causes compression of the image ....the concave appearance of the ground.
...."the earth assumed a regularly hollowed or concave appearance--an optical illusion which increases as you recede from it." There's the answer right in the experiment.
*********
Realism is more than the reliability of the senses when addressing their proper objects, FE. It includes detecting fallacious metaphysics, as here - the false assumption that light paths are always linear.
Also, there is the incomplete preparation for a rational discussion - lack of research and ignorance of basic physical phenomena like temperature inversion and mirages.
New: the 10 rebukes of the hypothesis have been given before in the video 10 more... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8)
CR1- original pix from space
CR2- lunar eclipse
CR3- horizon without refraction/mirages
CR4- circuмnavigation
CR5- stars change going north or south
CR6- Sun;'s shadow at different latitudes
CR7- Angles of triangle > 180 deg.
CR8- Coriolis effect
CR9- time zones
CR10-planets are round
The response to each of the 10 CR proofs must follow rules 1-7..
That is: Questions; then Rebuttal of CR con arguments against fe1->16 and of the 10 new CR proofs of a false hypothesis; then New pro evidence.
AMDG
-
I'm sort of interested in your explanation of the Route du Rum race. How do boats race around the world on a flat earth? How do you explain the race course that the boats take through the southern seas? Your explanation should increase the entertainment value of this thread.
I couldn't help but to notice that not one of you flat earth 'scientists' are able to answer my question. Here, let me assist you; It is because the world is a globe and the southern courses are shorter.
How do you explain the three southern circuмnavigations that showed a 69,000 mile circuмference?
Oh, that's right - you can't!
-
I'm sort of interested in your explanation of the Route du Rum race. How do boats race around the world on a flat earth? How do you explain the race course that the boats take through the southern seas? Your explanation should increase the entertainment value of this thread.
I couldn't help but to notice that not one of you flat earth 'scientists' are able to answer my question. Here, let me assist you; It is because the world is a globe and the southern courses are shorter.
What problem is there with a yacht race from France to Puerto Rico on the flat earth map?
Nothing unusual about it that I can see.
-
I'm sort of interested in your explanation of the Route du Rum race. How do boats race around the world on a flat earth? How do you explain the race course that the boats take through the southern seas? Your explanation should increase the entertainment value of this thread.
I couldn't help but to notice that not one of you flat earth 'scientists' are able to answer my question. Here, let me assist you; It is because the world is a globe and the southern courses are shorter.
What problem is there with a yacht race from France to Puerto Rico on the flat earth map?
Nothing unusual about it that I can see.
:applause:
-
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), those who believe in a flat earth assert that Antarctica surrounds the edge of the disc, and that an large wall of ice prevents anyone from "falling off," as it were. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it. Additionally, there are thousands (perhaps more) of people who have claimed to traverse Antarctica, and to have reached the south pole, without encountering either a wall of ice or an edge.
I'd be interested to know how flat earth proponents respond to this.
-
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), those who believe in a flat earth assert that Antarctica surrounds the edge of the disc, and that an large wall of ice prevents anyone from "falling off," as it were. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it. Additionally, there are thousands (perhaps more) of people who have claimed to traverse Antarctica, and to havw reached the south pole, without encountering either a wall of ice or an edge.
I'd be interested to know how flat earth proponents respond to this.
The only explanation I can think of is that all of those people are liars. If there really is an edge of the earth people would have seen it and taken pictures and videos. If there was an ice wall people would have flown over it with planes to see what was beyond it.
-
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), those who believe in a flat earth assert that Antarctica surrounds the edge of the disc, and that an large wall of ice prevents anyone from "falling off," as it were. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it. Additionally, there are thousands (perhaps more) of people who have claimed to traverse Antarctica, and to have reached the south pole, without encountering either a wall of ice or an edge.
I'd be interested to know how flat earth proponents respond to this.
This 15 minute video gives a good sketch of the theory of the ice wall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvWWY03IAw
-
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), those who believe in a flat earth assert that Antarctica surrounds the edge of the disc, and that an large wall of ice prevents anyone from "falling off," as it were. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it. Additionally, there are thousands (perhaps more) of people who have claimed to traverse Antarctica, and to havw reached the south pole, without encountering either a wall of ice or an edge.
I'd be interested to know how flat earth proponents respond to this.
The only explanation I can think of is that all of those people are liars. If there really is an edge of the earth people would have seen it and taken pictures and videos. If there was an ice wall people would have flown over it with planes to see what was beyond it.
Antarctic Explorers Killed? Jarle Andhoy's Story - Flat Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkq5CjLQFLk
-
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), those who believe in a flat earth assert that Antarctica surrounds the edge of the disc, and that an large wall of ice prevents anyone from "falling off," as it were. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it. Additionally, there are thousands (perhaps more) of people who have claimed to traverse Antarctica, and to have reached the south pole, without encountering either a wall of ice or an edge.
I'd be interested to know how flat earth proponents respond to this.
This 15 minute video gives a good sketch of the theory of the ice wall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvWWY03IAw
Forgive me, but after skimming through the video the point of it seems to be that despite the fact that there is no evidence of either an ice wall or an edge, we're going to assert the existence of one because of a conspiracy. That is not evidence.
What of Roald Amundsen's expedition in 1911? It was all a fake? What of the thousands of people who have claimed to travel there since then? They are all part of a massive conspiracy?
Most importantly, why has no proponent of a flat earth ever traveled to Antarctica to view the ice wall and/or the edge? Surely such an expedition revealing the existence of an ice wall and/or edge would end the debate.
-
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), those who believe in a flat earth assert that Antarctica surrounds the edge of the disc, and that an large wall of ice prevents anyone from "falling off," as it were. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it. Additionally, there are thousands (perhaps more) of people who have claimed to traverse Antarctica, and to have reached the south pole, without encountering either a wall of ice or an edge.
I'd be interested to know how flat earth proponents respond to this.
This 15 minute video gives a good sketch of the theory of the ice wall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvWWY03IAw
Forgive me, but after skimming through the video the point of it seems to be that despite the fact that there is no evidence of either an ice wall or an edge, we're going to assert the existence of one because of a conspiracy. That is not evidence.
What of Roald Amundsen's expedition in 1911? It was all a fake? What of the thousands of people who have claimed to travel there since then? They are all part of a massive conspiracy?
Yes, of course.
-
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), those who believe in a flat earth assert that Antarctica surrounds the edge of the disc, and that an large wall of ice prevents anyone from "falling off," as it were. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it. Additionally, there are thousands (perhaps more) of people who have claimed to traverse Antarctica, and to have reached the south pole, without encountering either a wall of ice or an edge.
I'd be interested to know how flat earth proponents respond to this.
This 15 minute video gives a good sketch of the theory of the ice wall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvWWY03IAw
Forgive me, but after skimming through the video the point of it seems to be that despite the fact that there is no evidence of either an ice wall or an edge, we're going to assert the existence of one because of a conspiracy. That is not evidence.
What of Roald Amundsen's expedition in 1911? It was all a fake? What of the thousands of people who have claimed to travel there since then? They are all part of a massive conspiracy?
Yes, of course.
And what evidence is there of such a conspiracy? Why would thousands of people from different counties around the earth, who appear to have no common interest or background, participate in such a conspiracy?
And, as I stated above, most importantly, why has no proponent of a flat earth ever traveled to Antarctica to view the ice wall and/or the edge? Surely such an expedition revealing the existence of an ice wall and/or edge would end the debate.
Kooks who want to prevent whales from being hunted are able to cobble together enough manpower and money to have annual expeditions to the antarctic ocean for no purpose other than harassing Japanese whaling vessels. Surely proponents of the flat earth could do the same, just to view the ice wall and/or edge.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mdg5k-WBFw
Ha ha, attempt to show 24 hour sun in the antarctic fails. Video from the south pole.
-
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), those who believe in a flat earth assert that Antarctica surrounds the edge of the disc, and that an large wall of ice prevents anyone from "falling off," as it were. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it. Additionally, there are thousands (perhaps more) of people who have claimed to traverse Antarctica, and to have reached the south pole, without encountering either a wall of ice or an edge.
I'd be interested to know how flat earth proponents respond to this.
This 15 minute video gives a good sketch of the theory of the ice wall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvWWY03IAw
Forgive me, but after skimming through the video the point of it seems to be that despite the fact that there is no evidence of either an ice wall or an edge, we're going to assert the existence of one because of a conspiracy. That is not evidence.
What of Roald Amundsen's expedition in 1911? It was all a fake? What of the thousands of people who have claimed to travel there since then? They are all part of a massive conspiracy?
Yes, of course.
And what evidence is there of such a conspiracy? Why would thousands of people from different counties around the earth, who appear to have no common interest or background, participate in such a conspiracy?
And, as I stated above, most importantly, why has no proponent of a flat earth ever traveled to Antarctica to view the ice wall and/or the edge? Surely such an expedition revealing the existence of an ice wall and/or edge would end the debate.
Kooks who want to prevent whales from being hunted are able to cobble together enough manpower and money to have annual expeditions to the antarctic ocean for no purpose other than harassing Japanese whaling vessels. Surely proponents of the flat earth could do the same, just to view the ice wall and/or edge.
This video shows that ordinary people cannot go to the south pole. Skipping costs information you need to make up your mind.
-
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), those who believe in a flat earth assert that Antarctica surrounds the edge of the disc, and that an large wall of ice prevents anyone from "falling off," as it were. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it. Additionally, there are thousands (perhaps more) of people who have claimed to traverse Antarctica, and to have reached the south pole, without encountering either a wall of ice or an edge.
I'd be interested to know how flat earth proponents respond to this.
This 15 minute video gives a good sketch of the theory of the ice wall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvWWY03IAw
Forgive me, but after skimming through the video the point of it seems to be that despite the fact that there is no evidence of either an ice wall or an edge, we're going to assert the existence of one because of a conspiracy. That is not evidence.
What of Roald Amundsen's expedition in 1911? It was all a fake? What of the thousands of people who have claimed to travel there since then? They are all part of a massive conspiracy?
Yes, of course.
And what evidence is there of such a conspiracy? Why would thousands of people from different counties around the earth, who appear to have no common interest or background, participate in such a conspiracy?
And, as I stated above, most importantly, why has no proponent of a flat earth ever traveled to Antarctica to view the ice wall and/or the edge? Surely such an expedition revealing the existence of an ice wall and/or edge would end the debate.
Kooks who want to prevent whales from being hunted are able to cobble together enough manpower and money to have annual expeditions to the antarctic ocean for no purpose other than harassing Japanese whaling vessels. Surely proponents of the flat earth could do the same, just to view the ice wall and/or edge.
Watch the video the above link I posted.
-
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), those who believe in a flat earth assert that Antarctica surrounds the edge of the disc, and that an large wall of ice prevents anyone from "falling off," as it were. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it. Additionally, there are thousands (perhaps more) of people who have claimed to traverse Antarctica, and to have reached the south pole, without encountering either a wall of ice or an edge.
I'd be interested to know how flat earth proponents respond to this.
All you have to do is enter words "ice wall Antarctica" into Google and you will get hundreds of images.
It is several hundred feet high.
-
it seems to be that despite the fact that there is no evidence of either an ice wall or an edge, we're going to assert the existence of one because of a conspiracy.
No one has ever suggested there is no ice wall. All the stations that are down there know it exists, an no flat earther would suggest that the existence of the ice wall is in doubt - it is not.
What IS a conspiracy is that there is a treaty between countries that allows no independent exploration of the Antarctic. Now, why would that be, do you suppose? What do they not want random explorers to see or find?
:scratchchin:
-
Notice Neil has not responded to this photo from earlier in the thread, of the scale of curvature being completely wrong in this photo of the Iberian Peninsula.
Nor, to the photo of Hurricane Matthew.
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
Then explain how the expedition circuмnavigating the South was 69,000 miles?
Oh, that's right - you can't!
Under your ball earth model, the poles should have the same circuмference...
but they DON'T.
WHERE IS DA CURVATURE??
-
Notice Neil has not responded to this photo from earlier in the thread, of the scale of curvature being completely wrong in this photo of the Iberian Peninsula.
Nor, to the photo of Hurricane Matthew.
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9862)
Gosh, I'm flattered you think my response is so important!
What exactly is it you want my response to in regards to this photo?
Are you worried about the 2 little parallelograms in the top right corner?
If not, maybe you should be.
Because if they can paste in images of figures that obviously are not really there, then they can distort other parts of the picture at will. BTW you can get such a view of a land mass at night showing city lights, using a wide angle lens. Do you know anything about photography?
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
Where is your proof.
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
Then explain how the expedition circuмnavigating the South was 69,000 miles?
Wait a minute. You said the circuмference of the earth was 25,000 miles, and that's something everyone can agree on. Now you say it's 69,000 miles.
Can you make up your mind?
-
Notice Neil has not responded to this photo from earlier in the thread, of the scale of curvature being completely wrong in this photo of the Iberian Peninsula.
Nor, to the photo of Hurricane Matthew.
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9862)
Gosh, I'm flattered you think my response is so important!
What exactly is it you want my response to in regards to this photo?
Are you worried about the 2 little parallelograms in the top right corner?
If not, maybe you should be.
Because if they can paste in images of figures that obviously are not really there, then they can distort other parts of the picture at will. BTW you can get such a view of a land mass at night showing city lights, using a wide angle lens. Do you know anything about photography?
I guess you missed my photography article on that subject a couple pages back...which explains how that curve you see in the photo, what JohnMarie called "barrel effect" is caused by a STRAIGHT LINE. Meaning, it is a distortion of the real thing, which is a STRAIGHT, LEVEL HORIZON.
Again, there is no curvature whatsoever.
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
Then explain how the expedition circuмnavigating the South was 69,000 miles?
Wait a minute. You said the circuмference of the earth was 25,000 miles, and that's something everyone can agree on. Now you say it's 69,000 miles.
Can you make up your mind?
YOU (and "science") state that the accepted measurement of earth's circuмference is 25,000 miles.
So, if true, how do you explain the South circuмnavigation that traversed 69,000 miles?
This would be impossible if the earth is a ball.
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
Where is your proof.
I thought it was obvious, but for you I'll explain. The distance around the earth following the equator is more that twice the distance compared to following the arctic circle. This is exactly why all the race boats brave the southern seas for a shorter distance circuмnavigating the globe.
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
Then explain how the expedition circuмnavigating the South was 69,000 miles?
Wait a minute. You said the circuмference of the earth was 25,000 miles, and that's something everyone can agree on. Now you say it's 69,000 miles.
Can you make up your mind?
YOU (and "science") state that the accepted measurement of earth's circuмference is 25,000 miles.
So, if true, how do you explain the South circuмnavigation that traversed 69,000 miles?
This would be impossible if the earth is a ball.
Maybe they walked in circles, kinda like you in this post.
:jumping2:
-
I'm sort of interested in your explanation of the Route du Rum race. How do boats race around the world on a flat earth? How do you explain the race course that the boats take through the southern seas? Your explanation should increase the entertainment value of this thread.
I couldn't help but to notice that not one of you flat earth 'scientists' are able to answer my question. Here, let me assist you; It is because the world is a globe and the southern courses are shorter.
What problem is there with a yacht race from France to Puerto Rico on the flat earth map?
Nothing unusual about it that I can see.
The race rules specifies that all capes are to be left to port, so the picture depicts a rule violation. In other words, you have to go the other way around the world.
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
Then explain how the expedition circuмnavigating the South was 69,000 miles?
Wait a minute. You said the circuмference of the earth was 25,000 miles, and that's something everyone can agree on. Now you say it's 69,000 miles.
Can you make up your mind?
YOU (and "science") state that the accepted measurement of earth's circuмference is 25,000 miles.
So, if true, how do you explain the South circuмnavigation that traversed 69,000 miles?
This would be impossible if the earth is a ball.
Maybe, for clarity, you might want to provide a reference for this 69,000mile circuмnavigation?
Here is a nice picture:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7_gMFng3OpY/RmXpQ35uWUI/AAAAAAAABw0/SOHyUwLrYuc/s400/848827627.jpg)
fyi. ME (and science) are disheartened by this thread.
-
As To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever encountered any such wall of ice, and there is no direct evidence of it.
A travel blogger's account (and nice pictures) of reaching the ice wall.
https://ourworldheritagebe.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/antarctica-3-reaching-the-ice-and-neumayer-station/
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
Where is your proof.
I thought it was obvious, but for you I'll explain. The distance around the earth following the equator is more that twice the distance compared to following the arctic circle. This is exactly why all the race boats brave the southern seas for a shorter distance circuмnavigating the globe.
Prove it.
-
I'm sort of interested in your explanation of the Route du Rum race. How do boats race around the world on a flat earth? How do you explain the race course that the boats take through the southern seas? Your explanation should increase the entertainment value of this thread.
I couldn't help but to notice that not one of you flat earth 'scientists' are able to answer my question. Here, let me assist you; It is because the world is a globe and the southern courses are shorter.
What problem is there with a yacht race from France to Puerto Rico on the flat earth map?
Nothing unusual about it that I can see.
The race rules specifies that all capes are to be left to port, so the picture depicts a rule violation. In other words, you have to go the other way around the world.
Since I am not in the yacht racing business, you'll have to elaborate, as your post doesn't make any sense.
Here's the map of the race on the globe map:
-
Maybe, for clarity, you might want to provide a reference for this 69,000mile circuмnavigation?
From upthread:
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
“Yes, but we can circuмnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
Nice FAKE picture.
-
I'm sort of interested in your explanation of the Route du Rum race. How do boats race around the world on a flat earth? How do you explain the race course that the boats take through the southern seas? Your explanation should increase the entertainment value of this thread.
I couldn't help but to notice that not one of you flat earth 'scientists' are able to answer my question. Here, let me assist you; It is because the world is a globe and the southern courses are shorter.
What problem is there with a yacht race from France to Puerto Rico on the flat earth map?
Nothing unusual about it that I can see.
The race rules specifies that all capes are to be left to port, so the picture depicts a rule violation. In other words, you have to go the other way around the world.
Since I am not in the yacht racing business, you'll have to elaborate, as your post doesn't make any sense.
Here's the map of the race on the globe map:
Sure, no problem. The boats leave France and head south, turning left (east) they pass all the southern most points of land (Cape of Good Hope (Africa), and Cape Horn (South America)), and then head north to Puerto Rico.
-
This is a VERY revealing article from Scientific American.
All sorts of strange shenaningans going on here...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/running-into-an-invisible-wall/
Running into an invisible wall
By Robin Bell
December 19, 2008
Editor's note: Marine geophysicist Robin Bell is leading an expedition to Antarctica to explore a mysterious mountain range beneath the ice sheet. Following is the twelfth of her updates on the effort as part of ScientificAmerican.com's In-Depth Report on the "Future of the Poles."
McMURDO STATION, ANTARCTICA--The British group had been acclimatizing at South Pole for three full days when it seemed we were ready to collect our first real line of data at the southern end of the survey area. The planned survey flight goes from the South Pole Station to the southern AGAP camp (AGAP-S), a three -hour flight north toward the camp, a refuel at the camp and a three- hour return flight.
We have been reviewing these flight lines for over eight months with detailed discussions on both side of the Atlantic and the Pacific. The bright yellow lines on the maps extend from the South Pole over 300 miles toward the camp. About 12 hours before the flight, I received a frantic call on the Iridium satellite phone from my Italian colleague, Fausto Ferricioli, who works for the British Antarctic Survey. “We cannot fly through the clear air sector!” he declared. His voice was broken up by the poor transmission, but he was clearly stressed. I had encountered clean air sectors before in Greenland, but those were the size of a small town and not an issue for an aircraft. I did not understand the problem until I pulled up a map: The the South Pole clean air sector is bigger than the state of New Jersey. Our survey lines sit right on top of the internationally agreed upon Clean Air sector.
Since Antarctica is not a sovereign nation, the environment of Antarctica is protected by the Antarctic Treaty, the first environmental treaty. Some areas are set aside to preserve historic sites, like the Cape Evans Hut and the Pole of Inaccessibility, where a Statue of Lenin is mounted. Other areas are preserved to protect critical environments for future science, areas of the Dry Valley where individual rocks have been in place for millions of years. It had not crossed my mind that most of the region between South Pole and our camp would be a specially managed areas. Around the South Pole station, there is a dark sector for astronomical experiments, a quiet sector when the seismometers reside to measure earthquakes, a downwind sector where balloons are launched and the Clean Air sector.
The only option is to fly around the edge of the wedge. When the pilot calls (after completing the flight lines that skirted the outside of the Clean Sector), he sounds tired. The additional mileage has turned changed a seven-hour mission into a 10-hour one. This would be a long day anywhere, but a really long day at this altitude. The British are working through the Home Office to seek permission to fly through. Funny, I never thought we would have diplomats involved in our survey design. We will see which happens first – permission or completion of the modified lines.
-
I'm sort of interested in your explanation of the Route du Rum race. How do boats race around the world on a flat earth? How do you explain the race course that the boats take through the southern seas? Your explanation should increase the entertainment value of this thread.
I couldn't help but to notice that not one of you flat earth 'scientists' are able to answer my question. Here, let me assist you; It is because the world is a globe and the southern courses are shorter.
What problem is there with a yacht race from France to Puerto Rico on the flat earth map?
Nothing unusual about it that I can see.
The race rules specifies that all capes are to be left to port, so the picture depicts a rule violation. In other words, you have to go the other way around the world.
Since I am not in the yacht racing business, you'll have to elaborate, as your post doesn't make any sense.
Here's the map of the race on the globe map:
Sure, no problem. The boats leave France and head south, turning left (east) they pass all the southern most points of land (Cape of Good Hope (Africa), and Cape Horn (South America)), and then head north to Puerto Rico.
That's not the route shown on their map.
-
The boats leave France and head south, turning left (east) they pass all the southern most points of land (Cape of Good Hope (Africa), and Cape Horn (South America)), and then head north to Puerto Rico.
Here's their official race tracker picture.
Nobody heading SOUTH out of France.
In fact, EVERYBODY heading NORTH past Ireland - just like on the FE map.
-
Maybe, for clarity, you might want to provide a reference for this 69,000mile circuмnavigation?
From upthread:
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
“Yes, but we can circuмnavigate the South easily enough,’ is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
Nice REAL picture.
It is almost funny that you would site other flat earth proponents for this quote. A quick search of your quote reveals that the source is not referenced to an original. So the 69K mile figure is not verifiable. This, in scientific and legal communities, would be described as hearsay. Please provide a source for the quote, preferably a source that is not selling the flat earth story.
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
Where is your proof.
I thought it was obvious, but for you I'll explain. The distance around the earth following the equator is more that twice the distance compared to following the arctic circle. This is exactly why all the race boats brave the southern seas for a shorter distance circuмnavigating the globe.
Prove it.
Prove the course that the racers take? It is a matter of fact. You can query past races, or wait for the next. It's common knowledge for educated people.
-
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
Then explain how the expedition circuмnavigating the South was 69,000 miles?
Wait a minute. You said the circuмference of the earth was 25,000 miles, and that's something everyone can agree on. Now you say it's 69,000 miles.
Can you make up your mind?
YOU (and "science") state that the accepted measurement of earth's circuмference is 25,000 miles.
So, if true, how do you explain the South circuмnavigation that traversed 69,000 miles?
This would be impossible if the earth is a ball.
Maybe, for clarity, you might want to provide a reference for this 69,000-mile circuмnavigation?
Here is a nice picture:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7_gMFng3OpY/RmXpQ35uWUI/AAAAAAAABw0/SOHyUwLrYuc/s400/848827627.jpg)
fyi. ME (and science) are disheartened by this thread.
You'd be better off talking about the antarctic circle instead of the arctic circle.
Here is a website currently listing 42 cruises and flights that cross the antarctic circle:
http://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica/destinations/crossing-antarctic-circle
Nowhere does Polarcruises warn customers that it's a 69,000-mile trip to go around the antarctic circle.
(http://www.polarcruises.com/sites/default/files/styles/banner1-large/public/destination/crossing-antarctic-circle/antarcticcircletourmap.jpg?itok=Zteoy3yE)
Or, try this: the South Pole Telescope at the South Pole Station...
(Where mw2016 asserts an international treaty forbids anyone to enter there!?)
How could there be a station and a telescope at the south pole
when that's beyond the mythical ice wall????
https://pole.uchicago.edu/
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/images/spt-title3.jpg)
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/sp-2006-0.jpg)
The South Pole Telescope is a huge undertaking! More than thirty scientists and engineers make up the team to build and operate this enormous instrument, and many more people are involved in supporting the effort at the South Pole Station. Building this telescope in one of the most extreme locations on the planet has posed unique challenges.
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/telescope-1.jpg)
Look at all the detail they've gone to just to pretend a telescope is real when it can't possibly exist!!
Oh, but what about the COLD environment? Isn't Antarctica COLD??
DOWNSTREAM OPTICS
Light that hits the primary mirror is reflected toward a large part of the SPT instrument called the "optics cryostat". There, it travels through a transparent window into a vacuum chamber, where a 1-meter secondary mirror reflects it again. Finally, it travels through a lens and into the "receiver cryostat", where it is absorbed by the detectors. The simplicity of this optical arrangement helps to make it easier to keep the telescope in good alignment. Also, any part of the telescope itself that is not kept extremely cold will "glow" with its own radiation, so we want to have as few optical components as possible. Radiation coming from parts of the telescope will be detected in the same way as CMB radiation is detected, and will contribute to "noise" in the detected signal.
To minimize radiation from elements of the telescope itself, all of the optics except the primary mirror are kept cold. The secondary mirror and the lens are kept at 10 degrees above absolute zero. The very sensitive detectors that make up the "receiver" or "camera" for the SPT actually need to be operated at much lower temperatures, at barely half of a degree above absolute zero!
Apparently they've turned the cold environment into an ASSET so they can keep their instruments cold and operating properly!
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/optics-2.jpg)
The picture shows the "optics cryostat", which holds the secondary mirror and the lens that make up the rest of the SPT optics. The main components of the optics cryostat are kept at 10K, or ten degrees above absolute zero. Light comes in through the window at the top and then is reflected through the lens onto the focal plane inside the "receiver cryostat", which is mounted below the window.
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/optics-3.jpg)
Also important for reducing noise at the detectors is the shielding in the optical design. The detectors only "look at" the inner 8 meters of the primary mirror; the outer 2 meters are a buffer to minimize the amount of light that gets on the detectors from places other than the sky. There are also shields along the side of the secondary boom. In the second year of observing a massive ground shield will surround the entire telescope. This ground shield will ensure that very little light from the ground can get to the telescope.
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/optics-5.jpg)
Plans for the enormous ground shield that will eventually be placed
around the telescope to block out radiation from the local environment.
mw2016 ought to get in touch with them immediately and warn them not to waste any time and expense building shields for their optical system when it can't possibly be real.
Tell them that the earth is FLAT and that nobody is allowed on Antarctica by international treaty!! HURRY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!! :roll-laugh1:
-
The boats leave France and head south, turning left (east) they pass all the southern most points of land (Cape of Good Hope (Africa), and Cape Horn (South America)), and then head north to Puerto Rico.
Here's their official race tracker picture.
Nobody heading SOUTH out of France.
In fact, EVERYBODY heading NORTH past Ireland - just like on the FE map.
You are correct, my mistake. I mixed up the races. The race to which I was referring is called the Vendée Globe. Sorry for the mixup.
http://tracking2012.vendeeglobe.org/en/
-
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/southpole-2.jpg)
WHY IS THE TELESCOPE AT THE SOUTH POLE?
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/pole-spt.gif)
Answer: Just To Annoy mw2016, obviously..........
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/southpole-answer.jpg)
.......NOT. The real answer is:
Because the South Pole is probably the best place on Earth for this telescope. It is extremely dry, making the atmosphere exceptionally transparent for SPT.
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/southpole-station.jpg)
Problem:
Even though the universe is glowing with the cosmic microwave background (CMB) light, from the ground we can only view this background light through the Earth's hazy atmosphere. The component of the atmosphere that causes the biggest problem for these observations is simple water vapor. Just like water in food absorbs radiation in a microwave oven, which heats the food, water in the atmosphere absorbs millimeter and sub-millimeter wavelength light from the sky (i.e., the CMB). In addition to absorbing the light we are looking for, water vapor also creates a false signal. It emits light at these wavelengths, and since water vapor is not uniform (consider how patchy clouds often look to us), the light it emits makes the sky look brighter in some spots than others (which is exactly what we are looking for in the CMB). In order to see faint variations in the CMB's brightness, we need to minimize these effects.
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/southpole-thermo.jpg)
Solution: Send mw2016 an e-mail asking for advice......... NOT!!
The South Pole lies on a plateau at a high altitude (almost 2 miles), elevated above much of the normal water vapor in the atmosphere. The extremely cold weather also reduces water vapor in the air. You may have experienced this phenomenon if you have been in Chicago, or a similarly cold place, in the winter. You probably noticed that the air was dry, the sky was clear, (and lip balm was a necessity!). The South Pole is much colder and thus much drier then Chicago. These desert-like conditions make the South Pole a great site for a millimeter/sub-millimeter telescope.
And now for the trick question:
Can the north star (Polaris) be observed using this SPT telescope?
-
The boats leave France and head south, turning left (east) they pass all the southern most points of land (Cape of Good Hope (Africa), and Cape Horn (South America)), and then head north to Puerto Rico.
Here's their official race tracker picture.
Nobody heading SOUTH out of France.
In fact, EVERYBODY heading NORTH past Ireland - just like on the FE map.
You are correct, my mistake. I mixed up the races. The race to which I was referring is called the Vendée Globe. Sorry for the mixup.
http://tracking2012.vendeeglobe.org/en/
Since the racing is starting next month, we can all watch realtime and see the course and miles covered by the fleet. If your 69,000 mile arctic circle circuмference figure is accurate, then we should be able to verify this fact by the boat speeds needed to achieve covering the course in the time that transpires ... uh oh, true science being applied here.
-
Prove the course that the racers take? It is a matter of fact. You can query past races, or wait for the next. It's common knowledge for educated people.
Here's a track from the race website. It is not proving your case for a ball earth, if that is what you think it is doing. If anything, it shows they take a slightly LONGER route going around the Azores to avoid the rougher seas of the northern side.
Here it is on the official USGS FE map:
And here on the site:
-
race site:
-
The boats leave France and head south, turning left (east) they pass all the southern most points of land (Cape of Good Hope (Africa), and Cape Horn (South America)), and then head north to Puerto Rico.
Here's their official race tracker picture.
Nobody heading SOUTH out of France.
In fact, EVERYBODY heading NORTH past Ireland - just like on the FE map.
You are correct, my mistake. I mixed up the races. The race to which I was referring is called the Vendée Globe. Sorry for the mixup.
http://tracking2012.vendeeglobe.org/en/
ARGH!! :really-mad2:
I'll be back tomorrow.
:fryingpan:
-
It is almost funny that you would site other flat earth proponents for this quote. A quick search of your quote reveals that the source is not referenced to an original. So the 69K mile figure is not verifiable. This, in scientific and legal communities, would be described as hearsay. Please provide a source for the quote, preferably a source that is not selling the flat earth story.
Cook's memoirs are indeed "hearsay" since he sailed it.
However, they did NOT come from a "flat earth" book.
http://www.south-pole.com/p0000071.htm
With the onset of winter, Cook sailed north and reached Dusky Sound, on the South Island of New Zealand, on March 25 after sailing some 10,600 miles through uncharted waters. He spent the winter exploring the islands of the South Pacific. During a storm Cook became separated from the ADVENTURE but, nevertheless, sailed south once again on November 27. He once again reached the ice pack, in mid December, and continued his search for a way through to the south. Cook's skill as a seaman and navigator cannot be challenged...through heavy storms and dangerous seas filled with huge icebergs the RESOLUTION survived without the loss of a single man. On January 30 he reached his furthest south but could go no further. The ice "extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height...It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the Pole, or perhaps joins to some land to which it has been fixed since creation".
Cook once again wintered in New Zealand, leaving in November 1774 on his third voyage. He sailed across the south Pacific and arrived five weeks later at Tierra del Fuego. He remained for two weeks and then left in a northeasterly direction into the Atlantic. Unexpectedly, they sighted land and immediately thought they had finally found the southern continent but instead it was an island, covered in ice, which he named South Georgia. Although his intentions were to continue to England, his temptation to the south could not be resisted and at the end of January he sighted a group of islands even more desolate than South Georgia. These he named the South Sandwich Islands. After a week of exploration in them, he turned north for England, reaching England on July 30, 1775. The voyage lasted three years and eight days covering more than 60,000 miles. Cook had proved there was no southern continent unless it was at the pole itself.
Cook's reputation was unchallenged and with his conclusion one can assume that all further exploration would have been unnecessary except for one detail...he kept thorough records of his sailing. Although governments were to turn their attentions elsewhere for exploration, the owners of whaling fleets in Europe and America were drawn to the southern waters by the constant mention in his journals of large numbers of seals and whales encountered during the voyages. Thus it was they, not the explorers, who now prepared themselves for exploration into the Antarctic waters.
-
The boats leave France and head south, turning left (east) they pass all the southern most points of land (Cape of Good Hope (Africa), and Cape Horn (South America)), and then head north to Puerto Rico.
Here's their official race tracker picture.
Nobody heading SOUTH out of France.
In fact, EVERYBODY heading NORTH past Ireland - just like on the FE map.
You are correct, my mistake. I mixed up the races. The race to which I was referring is called the Vendée Globe. Sorry for the mixup.
http://tracking2012.vendeeglobe.org/en/
Since the racing is starting next month, we can all watch realtime and see the course and miles covered by the fleet. If your 69,000 mile arctic circle circuмference figure is accurate, then we should be able to verify this fact by the boat speeds needed to achieve covering the course in the time that transpires ... uh oh, true science being applied here.
Again, I was mistaken. The race I am referring to is the Vendée Globe (starts and ends in France). Since we know the average speeds these yachts maintain, it should be easy to verify the distance they travel with the time that transpires during the race. If your model is correct, the boats will be clocking incredible speeds to cover the distance you describe. If near everybody else is correct, then the speeds should remain relatively constant, and will always be within the physical limitations of the boats.
-
Live Web Cam at the SPT (https://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm)
(https://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/SouthPoleWebcam/spole00001.jpg?=31122829.81)
Link to web page on the Antarctic Treaty
https://www.usap.gov/theAntarcticTreaty/index.cfm?m=2
-
The boats leave France and head south, turning left (east) they pass all the southern most points of land (Cape of Good Hope (Africa), and Cape Horn (South America)), and then head north to Puerto Rico.
Here's their official race tracker picture.
Nobody heading SOUTH out of France.
In fact, EVERYBODY heading NORTH past Ireland - just like on the FE map.
You are correct, my mistake. I mixed up the races. The race to which I was referring is called the Vendée Globe. Sorry for the mixup.
http://tracking2012.vendeeglobe.org/en/
Since the racing is starting next month, we can all watch realtime and see the course and miles covered by the fleet. If your 69,000 mile arctic circle circuмference figure is accurate, then we should be able to verify this fact by the boat speeds needed to achieve covering the course in the time that transpires ... uh oh, true science being applied here.
Again, I was mistaken. The race I am referring to is the Vendée Globe (starts and ends in France). Since we know the average speeds these yachts maintain, it should be easy to verify the distance they travel with the time that transpires during the race. If your model is correct, the boats will be clocking incredible speeds to cover the distance you describe. If near everybody else is correct, then the speeds should remain relatively constant, and will always be within the physical limitations of the boats.
So, in about four months we should be able to put this thread to rest. Until then.
-
If any amount of logic or reason were capable of putting this thread to rest, it would never have passed 5 pages.
-
If any amount of logic or reason were capable of putting this thread to rest, it would never have passed 5 pages.
Those people who support the Freemasons and the Illuminati will believe the earth is a globe no matter how much evidence we give them proving otherwise.
-
If any amount of logic or reason were capable of putting this thread to rest, it would never have passed 5 pages.
The reason why this thread is more than 5 pages is that we continue to severely bother the consciences of people on CathInfo who still want to continue to believe the lies from NASA, Freemasons, and the Illuminati.
As long as this thread keeps pricking the consciences of those who wish to believe the earth is a globe, this thread, in theory, could continue indefinitely.
The evidence of the flat earth is overwhelming and several of us have plenty of time to increase the page count. :popcorn:
-
If any amount of logic or reason were capable of putting this thread to rest, it would never have passed 5 pages.
Those people who support the Freemasons and the Illuminati will believe the earth is a globe no matter how much evidence we give them proving otherwise.
Yup, you caught me. I'm a freemason. Nice detective work there. :applause:
Excuse me while I head off to my lodge meeting. It takes a lot of planning to deceive 99% of the world's population!
-
......
1- YOUR (and Robert Sungenis's) version of geocentrism (merely reversing the position of the earth and the sun, while keeping all other elements of HELIOCENTRISM intact) is in ERROR.
2- Your proposed version of geocentrism doesn't work according to the accepted laws of physics, and you have no scientific proof of it - whereas, there are many scientific observations that can be made which PROVE the geocentric FLAT earth model.
......
3- Once again, from 1610 Douay Rheims.....
'compasseth'...???
Rebuttal:
1- Strawman alert - The Sungenis version of GC is the hierarchical Neo-Tychonian model, which is NOT just reversing the position of Sun and Earth - which would make the Moon orbit the Sun and Mercury orbit the Earth!
Rather - the Earth has 2 primary satellites - Sun and Moon.
The Sun has planetary satellites which are secondary satellites of Earth.
Most planets have moons which are tertiary satellites of Earth.
The NT model duplicates all observations of the solar system motions seen in the Copernican model.
Fallacy here - the Red Herring
2- Cassandar has shown - in the GC poll thread - that the laws of dynamics in physics are only valid on Earth....of many proofs are Newton's bucket and any test of F= ma, like the car and hitch-hiker.
"many scientific observation prove FE" lacks substance...like specific evidence!
Fallacy: claim is contrary to fact.
3-In over 4 centuries the 1610 DR has had updated translations which replace 'compasseth' with 'GLOBE'.. Why wasn't the latest version of DR used for Is 40:22?...
'It is he that sitteth upon the GLOBE of the earth,' .....
http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x)
Using the original Hebrew texts, the word for 'compass' is Strong's H2329 - chuwg - defined as
circle, circuit, compass
or
vault (of the heavens), dome
Fallacy; using a Middle English version of the Bible over 400 yrs old.
AMDG
-
3-In over 4 centuries the 1610 DR has had updated translations which replace 'compasseth' with 'GLOBE'.. Why wasn't the latest version of DR used for Is 40:22?...
'It is he that sitteth upon the GLOBE of the earth,' .....
http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=40&l=22#x)
Using the original Hebrew texts, the word for 'compass' is Strong's H2329 - chuwg - defined as
circle, circuit, compass
or
vault (of the heavens), dome
Fallacy; using a Middle English version of the Bible over 400 yrs old.
Updated??
What need would there be to "update" our Church's original Bible? Especially when the 1610 Douay-Rheims translates EXACTLY the original Hebrew manuscript (chuwg = circle, circuit, compass)? Nowhere does that ever translate to "globe." It does not need "updating." The source is the best - unless, of course, you agree that "modern" is best...but, that would be a whole other can of worms, eh?
:wink:
-
As long as this thread keeps pricking the consciences of those who wish to believe the earth is a globe, this thread, in theory, could continue indefinitely.
The evidence of the flat earth is overwhelming
Exactly right - this thread needs to prick the consciences of all Traditional Catholics and wake them up to the Truth of God's design of His Creation and the Truth of the book of Genesis, which the devil has worked very hard to lie to them about. Nearly the entire world has bought that lie, and the Truth is beginning a victory at this moment in time.
-
If any amount of logic or reason were capable of putting this thread to rest, it would never have passed 5 pages.
. . . and several of us have plenty of time to increase the page count. :popcorn:
I'm not sure that's something to brag about...
-
As long as this thread keeps pricking the consciences of those who wish to believe the earth is a globe, this thread, in theory, could continue indefinitely.
The evidence of the flat earth is overwhelming
Exactly right - this thread needs to prick the consciences of all Traditional Catholics and wake them up to the Truth of God's design of His Creation and the Truth of the book of Genesis, which the devil has worked very hard to lie to them about. Nearly the entire world has bought that lie, and the Truth is beginning a victory at this moment in time.
:applause:
-
If any amount of logic or reason were capable of putting this thread to rest, it would never have passed 5 pages.
. . . and several of us have plenty of time to increase the page count. :popcorn:
I'm not sure that's something to brag about...
Promoting the truth is always a good thing and I will continue to promote the flat earth truth.
We are getting to you. :scared2: :scared2:
-
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=1060&#p1)
The Earth's circuмference at the Equator is 24,902 miles, while at the Arctic Circle the distance around the Earth is 10,975 miles. SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the world is not flat.
You'd be better off talking about the antarctic circle instead of the arctic circle.
It doesn't help to keep repeating "scientific proof" because science isn't in the business of proving anything. Science is not geometry.
And geometry relies on a set of axioms before any proofs can be made, for without the axioms there are no proofs possible. Everyone has to agree on the axioms.
Here is a website currently listing 42 cruises and flights that cross the antarctic circle:
http://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica/destinations/crossing-antarctic-circle
Nowhere does Polarcruises warn customers that it's a 69,000-mile trip to go around the antarctic circle.
(http://www.polarcruises.com/sites/default/files/styles/banner1-large/public/destination/crossing-antarctic-circle/antarcticcircletourmap.jpg?itok=Zteoy3yE)
Or, try this: the South Pole Telescope at the South Pole Station...
(Where mw2016 asserts an international treaty forbids anyone to enter there!?)
How could there be a station and a telescope at the south pole
when that's beyond the mythical ice wall????
https://pole.uchicago.edu/
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/images/spt-title3.jpg)
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/sp-2006-0.jpg)
The South Pole Telescope is a huge undertaking! More than thirty scientists and engineers make up the team to build and operate this enormous instrument, and many more people are involved in supporting the effort at the South Pole Station. Building this telescope in one of the most extreme locations on the planet has posed unique challenges.
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/telescope-1.jpg)
Look at all the detail they've gone to just to pretend a telescope is real when it can't possibly exist!!
Oh, but what about the COLD environment? Isn't Antarctica COLD??
DOWNSTREAM OPTICS
Light that hits the primary mirror is reflected toward a large part of the SPT instrument called the "optics cryostat". There, it travels through a transparent window into a vacuum chamber, where a 1-meter secondary mirror reflects it again. Finally, it travels through a lens and into the "receiver cryostat", where it is absorbed by the detectors. The simplicity of this optical arrangement helps to make it easier to keep the telescope in good alignment. Also, any part of the telescope itself that is not kept extremely cold will "glow" with its own radiation, so we want to have as few optical components as possible. Radiation coming from parts of the telescope will be detected in the same way as CMB radiation is detected, and will contribute to "noise" in the detected signal.
To minimize radiation from elements of the telescope itself, all of the optics except the primary mirror are kept cold. The secondary mirror and the lens are kept at 10 degrees above absolute zero. The very sensitive detectors that make up the "receiver" or "camera" for the SPT actually need to be operated at much lower temperatures, at barely half of a degree above absolute zero!
Apparently they've turned the cold environment into an ASSET so they can keep their instruments cold and operating properly!
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/optics-2.jpg)
The picture shows the "optics cryostat", which holds the secondary mirror and the lens that make up the rest of the SPT optics. The main components of the optics cryostat are kept at 10K, or ten degrees above absolute zero. Light comes in through the window at the top and then is reflected through the lens onto the focal plane inside the "receiver cryostat", which is mounted below the window.
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/optics-3.jpg)
Also important for reducing noise at the detectors is the shielding in the optical design. The detectors only "look at" the inner 8 meters of the primary mirror; the outer 2 meters are a buffer to minimize the amount of light that gets on the detectors from places other than the sky. There are also shields along the side of the secondary boom. In the second year of observing a massive ground shield will surround the entire telescope. This ground shield will ensure that very little light from the ground can get to the telescope.
(https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/images/optics-5.jpg)
Plans for the enormous ground shield that will eventually be placed
around the telescope to block out radiation from the local environment.
mw2016 ought to get in touch with them immediately and warn them not to waste any time and expense building shields for their optical system when it can't possibly be real.
Tell them that the earth is FLAT and that nobody is allowed on Antarctica by international treaty!! HURRY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!! :roll-laugh1:
-
I just came from a parking lot club meeting of amateur astronomers who had their telescopes set up for public viewing. These were multi-thousand-dollar rigs with computerized tracking and counterbalances, mounted on hefty tripods.
Several were trained on Saturn, one on Mars, a couple on Vega, and one on the ring nebula near Vega. I've never seen a ring nebula first hand before this. But it was right there, plain as the nose on your face.
The telescopes following the moon had such sharp, up-close resolution as I have never seen in photographs, I could see distinct shadows in the craters and hills all over the half moon, which is without question a spherical body. The shadows of the features and shading of the surface intensity clearly exhibit a spheroid moon, even without having a second image from a different angle to compare to it.
One of the scope owners told me the best time to look at the moon is during clear daylight, and a new moon. He said you don't get appreciable disturbance from the refraction of the earth's atmosphere and the detail of the moon's features is more distinct. Also, there is better contrast! That was surprising to me since I thought the dark sky around the moon at night would give better contrast, but he said he's talking about closeups of the moon itself. These telescopes had views of the moon where the entire field of view was FILLED with one portion of the moon, so the entire moon would be two or more times as big as their eyepiece image. They were very impressive telescopes.
-
Neil said:
How could there be a station and a telescope at the south pole
when that's beyond the mythical ice wall????
Admiral Byrd describes land beyond the ice wall, so there are inlets to areas where a station and telescope can be placed at place they call the "south pole". NASA readily admits that the real south pole is not possible to reach since some people have visited their "south pole" and have not reached the latitude expected. NASA's response is that the real 'pole' is further along in hostile environs that prevent access, so they set up a dummy to represent the pole.
More on Antarctica: quotes from scientific expeditions past by explorers who have been to the continent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZP_VZ_Ehvk
-
I just came from a parking lot club meeting of amateur astronomers who had their telescopes set up for public viewing. These were multi-thousand-dollar rigs with computerized tracking and counterbalances, mounted on hefty tripods.
Several were trained on Saturn, one on Mars, a couple on Vega, and one on the ring nebula near Vega. I've never seen a ring nebula first hand before this. But it was right there, plain as the nose on your face.
The telescopes following the moon had such sharp, up-close resolution as I have never seen in photographs, I could see distinct shadows in the craters and hills all over the half moon, which is without question a spherical body. The shadows of the features and shading of the surface intensity clearly exhibit a spheroid moon, even without having a second image from a different angle to compare to it.
One of the scope owners told me the best time to look at the moon is during clear daylight, and a new moon. He said you don't get appreciable disturbance from the refraction of the earth's atmosphere and the detail of the moon's features is more distinct. Also, there is better contrast! That was surprising to me since I thought the dark sky around the moon at night would give better contrast, but he said he's talking about closeups of the moon itself. These telescopes had views of the moon where the entire field of view was FILLED with one portion of the moon, so the entire moon would be two or more times as big as their eyepiece image. They were very impressive telescopes.
This sounds fascinating. You were quite fortunate to have access. Not all flat earthers believe the moon to be a disk. I have also seen high end telescopes hooked up to computers for great detail and was also impressed. Sounds like yours was even better.
-
You guys had best get on the stick and let these dreamers know it's impossible to go to the south pole.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r6LwIL39puc/Tyt9iWrSaNI/AAAAAAAAGQU/kzMqBa5p8fQ/s640/037.JPG)
They have a flagpole with a weather vane on top reminding you it's north in all directions.
This map gives a sentient human a good idea of where they're talking about:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3-jGffwmzhA/Tyt4XI03PNI/AAAAAAAAGO4/S1eBjFZ9as8/s640/antarctica-political-map.jpg)
They do have a road sign in case you get lost and need directions:
(http://www.mostang.com/mw/iss01/image/nmpost.jpg)
But curiously, there are no roads!
Here's a bird's eye view of the area:
(http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/images/prss/south_pole_ds.jpg)
That's the South Pole Telescope in the right upper half of the picture.
Telescope close-up:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--14VvWoE1Q8/Tyuogp2fXDI/AAAAAAAAGWQ/D7a485znge0/s640/013.JPG)
Whenever you find this man tell him he faked the whole thing and he was never there:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5xDCXEzCOzA/Tyuq_7Vq_JI/AAAAAAAAGW4/Jny-f5P_gjg/s640/011.JPG)
And be sure to notify all the staff they've been subject to a great conspiracy:
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F11%2F10%2Fscience%2F10dome-span%2FarticleLarge.jpg&sp=86ddd93a51a2f66d47f0947efeef4076)
-
The whole Geographic South Pole sign to read:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q0ANq8EESnE/Tsf2Hewy-LI/AAAAAAAAAG4/2b3lvjerl8Q/s1600/IMG_0725.jpg)
The geographic south pole is above, the ceremonial south pole is below. The main station- the one and only structured building at the south pole- is behind the flags.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lCxkCSCULzs/Tsf2KsrwGPI/AAAAAAAAAHA/h5Gj35dr6eo/s1600/IMG_0727.jpg)
This map doesn't say "not to scale" on it:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5FphuIB80qA/ThHSSs7uOWI/AAAAAAAAAAc/dufA6rQ27ck/s760/600px-Antarctica_svg.png)
These guys have shadows that are very odd. Shouldn't they be at their feet instead of long shadows like this? I mean, with a flat earth, the sun should be directly overhead in broad daylight.
(https://spacewx.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/blog-day34-3.jpg)
-
You guys had best get on the stick and let these dreamers know it's impossible to go to the south pole.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r6LwIL39puc/Tyt9iWrSaNI/AAAAAAAAGQU/kzMqBa5p8fQ/s640/037.JPG)
They have a flagpole with a weather vane on top reminding you it's north in all directions.
This map gives a sentient human a good idea of where they're talking about:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3-jGffwmzhA/Tyt4XI03PNI/AAAAAAAAGO4/S1eBjFZ9as8/s640/antarctica-political-map.jpg)
They do have a road sign in case you get lost and need directions:
(http://www.mostang.com/mw/iss01/image/nmpost.jpg)
But curiously, there are no roads!
Here's a bird's eye view of the area:
(http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/images/prss/south_pole_ds.jpg)
That's the South Pole Telescope in the right upper half of the picture.
Telescope close-up:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--14VvWoE1Q8/Tyuogp2fXDI/AAAAAAAAGWQ/D7a485znge0/s640/013.JPG)
Whenever you find this man tell him he faked the whole thing and he was never there:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5xDCXEzCOzA/Tyuq_7Vq_JI/AAAAAAAAGW4/Jny-f5P_gjg/s640/011.JPG)
And be sure to notify all the staff they've been subject to a great conspiracy:
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F11%2F10%2Fscience%2F10dome-span%2FarticleLarge.jpg&sp=86ddd93a51a2f66d47f0947efeef4076)
Nice pictures of northern Siberia. :roll-laugh2:
-
I just came from a parking lot club meeting of amateur astronomers who had their telescopes set up for public viewing. These were multi-thousand-dollar rigs with computerized tracking and counterbalances, mounted on hefty tripods.
Several were trained on Saturn, one on Mars, a couple on Vega, and one on the ring nebula near Vega. I've never seen a ring nebula first hand before this. But it was right there, plain as the nose on your face.
The telescopes following the moon had such sharp, up-close resolution as I have never seen in photographs, I could see distinct shadows in the craters and hills all over the half moon, which is without question a spherical body. The shadows of the features and shading of the surface intensity clearly exhibit a spheroid moon, even without having a second image from a different angle to compare to it.
One of the scope owners told me the best time to look at the moon is during clear daylight, and a new moon. He said you don't get appreciable disturbance from the refraction of the earth's atmosphere and the detail of the moon's features is more distinct. Also, there is better contrast! That was surprising to me since I thought the dark sky around the moon at night would give better contrast, but he said he's talking about closeups of the moon itself. These telescopes had views of the moon where the entire field of view was FILLED with one portion of the moon, so the entire moon would be two or more times as big as their eyepiece image. They were very impressive telescopes.
To my knowledge, any flat earthers that think the moon is a disk are a minority. Very few.
All the major FE proponents acknowledge the moon to be a sphere, which can plainly be perceived with the eye. However, it is not to be assumed that the earth is a sphere simply because the moon is one.
-
We are getting to you. :scared2: :scared2:
Why do you think you are "getting to" anybody?
If I was convinced or saw strong evidence that the earth is flat, I would say so with no hesitation. I have no problem expressing my tinfoil hat ideas even to people who find them shocking. It's no hair off my ass if the earth is flat. I just happen to think that it's round and that anybody beyond a caveman or a modern day trailer park dweller/make-believe wannabe conspiracy theorist with a third grade education knows it is. I proudly count myself among discerning conspiracy theorists--but I don't have time for make-believe fantasy bs.
-
We are getting to you. :scared2: :scared2:
Why do you think you are "getting to" anybody?
If I was convinced or saw strong evidence that the earth is flat, I would say so with no hesitation. I have no problem expressing my tinfoil hat ideas even to people who find them shocking. It's no hair off my ass if the earth is flat. I just happen to think that it's round and that anybody beyond a caveman or a modern day trailer park dweller/make-believe wannabe conspiracy theorist with a third grade education knows it is. I proudly count myself among discerning conspiracy theorists--but I don't have time for make-believe fantasy bs.
:incense: Choosing to deny the Genesis account of the flat earth is very sacrilegious.
-
We are getting to you. :scared2: :scared2:
Why do you think you are "getting to" anybody?
If I was convinced or saw strong evidence that the earth is flat, I would say so with no hesitation. I have no problem expressing my tinfoil hat ideas even to people who find them shocking. It's no hair off my ass if the earth is flat. I just happen to think that it's round and that anybody beyond a caveman or a modern day trailer park dweller/make-believe wannabe conspiracy theorist with a third grade education knows it is. I proudly count myself among discerning conspiracy theorists--but I don't have time for make-believe fantasy bs.
:incense: Choosing to deny the Genesis account of the flat earth is very sacrilegious.
Privately interpreting Scripture is heretical. You flat-earthers sound like a bunch of trailer trash protestants missing most of their teeth with nothing to do between waiting for SSI checks but dream up a bunch of idiocy and get suckered in by a bunch of jews promoting flat-earthism to discredit valid "conspiracy theories."
-
We are getting to you. :scared2: :scared2:
Why do you think you are "getting to" anybody?
If I was convinced or saw strong evidence that the earth is flat, I would say so with no hesitation. I have no problem expressing my tinfoil hat ideas even to people who find them shocking. It's no hair off my ass if the earth is flat. I just happen to think that it's round and that anybody beyond a caveman or a modern day trailer park dweller/make-believe wannabe conspiracy theorist with a third grade education knows it is. I proudly count myself among discerning conspiracy theorists--but I don't have time for make-believe fantasy bs.
:incense: Choosing to deny the Genesis account of the flat earth is very sacrilegious.
Privately interpreting Scripture is heretical. You flat-earthers sound like a bunch of trailer trash protestants missing most of their teeth with nothing to do between waiting for SSI checks but dream up a bunch of idiocy and get suckered in by a bunch of jews promoting flat-earthism to discredit valid "conspiracy theories."
The earth has never been proven to have any curvature. You seem very mad at God for not creating a globe earth.
-
The moon I saw last night was a LOT more impressive than the photo, below. Of course, this is a compressed version of the original photo that's for sale at the site linked (http://bartoszwojczynski.com/picture-160119-bigmoon). What I saw was about half this size, so obviously there was room for more resolution and detail since the field of view was smaller. The owner of the telescope said that any man-made structures which someone may like to find, if within view, would be too small to be discernible.
The "World's Largest Photograph of the Moon taken from Earth - ever," the site says:
(http://bartoszwojczynski.com/gallery/full/160119-bigmoon.jpg)
Please describe how "flat" this moon looks to you, if you can.
Bartosz
Wojczy?ski
Purchase a print of this photograph on Pixels.com
Download the full size version (14000x14000, 18.9 MB)
Just as the title says, this is the largest photograph of the Moon taken from Earth - ever.
Our satellite has a diameter of approximately 12426 pixels on this photograph, yielding an image scale of 280 meters per pixel. The image of the Moon fits in a rectangle of 10420x12260 pixels, which corresponds to an area of 127.75 megapixels. The full size image has been expanded to 14000x14000 pixels for aesthetics.
Technical information
Location: Piekary ?l?skie, Poland
Date and time: 2016 January 19, 22:35 - 23:15 CET
Camera: ZWO ASI174MM
Filtering: ZWO R filter
Mount: Sky-Watcher HEQ5
Optics: Celestron C9.25, Celestron X-Cel LX 3x Barlow lens; approximate effective f = 7200 mm
Exposure: 177 panes, 100 out of 200 frames per pane
Processing: AutoStakkert (alignment, stacking); Astra Image (Lucy-Richardson deconvolution, wavelet transform)
Share this photograph
Like my work? Spread the word!
-
promoting flat-earthism to discredit valid "conspiracy theories."
There it is...at last we come to your objection: you think FE discredits your favorite pet conspiracy theory (9/11, moon hoax, JFK, geocentrism, etc.). That's pretty funny.
It's all about human respect with people like this. They don't want to look any more stupid to the general sleeping public than they already do with their pet conspiracy theory.
-
The moon I saw last night was a LOT more impressive than the photo, below. Of course, this is a compressed version of the original photo that's for sale at the site linked (http://bartoszwojczynski.com/picture-160119-bigmoon). What I saw was about half this size, so obviously there was room for more resolution and detail since the field of view was smaller. The owner of the telescope said that any man-made structures which someone may like to find, if within view, would be too small to be discernible.
The "World's Largest Photograph of the Moon taken from Earth - ever," the site says:
(http://bartoszwojczynski.com/gallery/full/160119-bigmoon.jpg)
Please describe how "flat" this moon looks to you, if you can.
Bartosz
Wojczy?ski
Purchase a print of this photograph on Pixels.com
Download the full size version (14000x14000, 18.9 MB)
Just as the title says, this is the largest photograph of the Moon taken from Earth - ever.
Our satellite has a diameter of approximately 12426 pixels on this photograph, yielding an image scale of 280 meters per pixel. The image of the Moon fits in a rectangle of 10420x12260 pixels, which corresponds to an area of 127.75 megapixels. The full size image has been expanded to 14000x14000 pixels for aesthetics.
Technical information
Location: Piekary ?l?skie, Poland
Date and time: 2016 January 19, 22:35 - 23:15 CET
Camera: ZWO ASI174MM
Filtering: ZWO R filter
Mount: Sky-Watcher HEQ5
Optics: Celestron C9.25, Celestron X-Cel LX 3x Barlow lens; approximate effective f = 7200 mm
Exposure: 177 panes, 100 out of 200 frames per pane
Processing: AutoStakkert (alignment, stacking); Astra Image (Lucy-Richardson deconvolution, wavelet transform)
Share this photograph
Like my work? Spread the word!
Looks like a ball to me.
Still has nothing to do with the shape that God made the earth.
:wink:
-
Looks like a ball to me.
Still has nothing to do with the shape that God made the earth.
So are you sticking to your moonlight-comes-from-inside-the-moon schtick?
Or are you now willing to admit that the illumination we see is caused by sunlight shining on the moon?
-
We are getting to you. :scared2: :scared2:
Why do you think you are "getting to" anybody?
If I was convinced or saw strong evidence that the earth is flat, I would say so with no hesitation. I have no problem expressing my tinfoil hat ideas even to people who find them shocking. It's no hair off my ass if the earth is flat. I just happen to think that it's round and that anybody beyond a caveman or a modern day trailer park dweller/make-believe wannabe conspiracy theorist with a third grade education knows it is. I proudly count myself among discerning conspiracy theorists--but I don't have time for make-believe fantasy bs.
:incense: Choosing to deny the Genesis account of the flat earth is very sacrilegious.
Privately interpreting Scripture is heretical. You flat-earthers sound like a bunch of trailer trash protestants missing most of their teeth with nothing to do between waiting for SSI checks but dream up a bunch of idiocy and get suckered in by a bunch of jews promoting flat-earthism to discredit valid "conspiracy theories."
Scripture is to be interpreted literally unless otherwise specified. If you were familiar with scripture you would know that with dozens and dozens of passages regarding creation, earth, the sun, the moon and the the stars, it is impossible to reconcile the modern heliocentric pagan teaching with the description in scripture. Cameras, telescopes, computers and other high tech work hand in glove to prove from the scientific point of view what scripture has said all along. The earth is flat.
-
Looks like a ball to me.
Still has nothing to do with the shape that God made the earth.
So are you sticking to your moonlight-comes-from-inside-the-moon schtick?
Or are you now willing to admit that the illumination we see is caused by sunlight shining on the moon?
The surface of the moon doesn't do much for proving the light can be reflected either.
-
Looks like a ball to me.
Still has nothing to do with the shape that God made the earth.
So are you sticking to your moonlight-comes-from-inside-the-moon schtick?
Or are you now willing to admit that the illumination we see is caused by sunlight shining on the moon?
The surface of the moon doesn't do much for proving the light can be reflected either.
The moon reflects the light of the sun. This much is clear, especially when studying the moon, its phases, and the qualities of light and reflection in general. All evidence points to the moon as a reflector, and not a self-illuminating body.
-
We are getting to you. :scared2: :scared2:
Why do you think you are "getting to" anybody?
If I was convinced or saw strong evidence that the earth is flat, I would say so with no hesitation. I have no problem expressing my tinfoil hat ideas even to people who find them shocking. It's no hair off my ass if the earth is flat. I just happen to think that it's round and that anybody beyond a caveman or a modern day trailer park dweller/make-believe wannabe conspiracy theorist with a third grade education knows it is. I proudly count myself among discerning conspiracy theorists--but I don't have time for make-believe fantasy bs.
:incense: Choosing to deny the Genesis account of the flat earth is very sacrilegious.
Privately interpreting Scripture is heretical. You flat-earthers sound like a bunch of trailer trash protestants missing most of their teeth with nothing to do between waiting for SSI checks but dream up a bunch of idiocy and get suckered in by a bunch of jews promoting flat-earthism to discredit valid "conspiracy theories."
The earth has never been proven to have any curvature. You seem very mad at God for not creating a globe earth.
I believe He did create a globe earth and that anybody who believes otherwise is a dunce. Not mad at all--even if it turns He didn't (though I'd have a lot of crow to eat).
-
Looks like a ball to me.
Still has nothing to do with the shape that God made the earth.
So are you sticking to your moonlight-comes-from-inside-the-moon schtick?
Or are you now willing to admit that the illumination we see is caused by sunlight shining on the moon?
The surface of the moon doesn't do much for proving the light can be reflected either.
The moon reflects the light of the sun. This much is clear, especially when studying the moon, its phases, and the qualities of light and reflection in general. All evidence points to the moon as a reflector, and not a self-illuminating body.
Since your studies do not include admission of empirical evidence known about the moon's light, they are insufficient for insisting that the moon is exclusively a reflector and not self illuminated. From scripture to science the evidence mounts against the moon being only a reflector of light unless your studies have blinders on. In fact, all other illuminated bodies in the heavens are self illuminated, each with different light patterns and frequencies. Moonlight is also measurable in its unique temperature, color and distinguishing characteristics, not only in the science lab belonging to someone with an agenda, but demonstrable in one's own back yard. Now that I've collected data for myself, I know what is true.
-
Off to a ominous start, fe.... the very first word is an error...CassandAr, s'il vous plait.
You have ignored the 20 or so pro-globe arguments and proposed your own 16 'over the horizon' videos. This response is the style of the FE folks (and pols) ...ignore facts and put up more flak. This must change to a formal and fair protocol if dialog is to have any value.
So...a few rules for the thread title/hypothesis -
Given: Science Proves that Earth is Not a Globe
1. No theological proofs may be offered.
2. Proof of the hypothesis does not prove the Earth is Flat...only that it is not a globe. Logic can be cruel...
3. Both members - fe pro side and CR con side - must only present specific evidence allowed by the epistemology and logic of scholasticism and the sci. method.
4. The pro member fe must advocate everything required by the topic itself, with no revision of position.
5. Assertions must provide enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it ....= 'reasonable belief'. Facts must be accurate.
6. Each posting has 3 parts:
Q?: any fair, clear questions that have a direct bearing on the issue. ..no new statements, comments, or rhetorical questions.
Reb: Rebuttal of prior postings ...no new arguments.
New: New arguments
7. All arguments must be addressed.
The fairness of the rules does impose a hefty burden on FE fans, who are accustomed to ignore the reality challenges and rely on their volume of videos and internet bottom-fishing to exhaust any rational resistance. Let's avoid a repeat of the Trump vs. Holt/Hillary debate.
*******************
This is how it's done: :
fe post 1:
New: The first experimental proof is the Anacapa video : fe1 = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs
The next tests are the 15 Zen astronomy experiments.... at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm
to be labeled fe2->fe16
CR post 1:
Q?: re sacred texts - Published in 1881, they are 135 yrs old... so why do we ignore all tech advances in optics since then....lasers, zoom lenses, laws of refraction..?
If the sci method is just common sense, then why do the FE fanatics make the uncommon choice of a Flat Earth?
Rebut: re fe1-
1- 1:06 marker: the diagram assumes a st line path of a light ray between target and viewer (on Miramar beach)
2- 1:19: diagram in error...swells of 5 ft are peak to valley compared to calm .... so the distance above calm water is 2.5 ft, not 5 ft.
3- 1:25: the island image is covered with haze...a high humidity indicator.
4- 3:30 : the 560 ft elevation image is sharper => less humidity along a higher light path.
5- 5:30: camera not just at sea level but in the sea => wet lens distorts the image.
The conditions indicate image distortion by air temperature inversion layers, common over bodies of water.
The ability to see over the horizon is a favorite ploy of FE fans…FE makes the false assumption that light ALWAYS travels in a st. line. To say that light always travels a straight line is to believe that a straw really bends in a glass of water.
The view beyond the horizon of the Earth's curvature is caused by warm air over cold, the reverse of the normal decrease of temp with altitude.A layer of warm air above cold air causes light refraction. In this case the island image is lifted above the actual location of the object to form a superior image.
Several types of images can be formed… One type - the superior image -forms an erect view of the object above its actual position.
For the superior mirage to be seen, the air close to the surface must be much colder than the air above it. This condition is common over snow, ice and cold water surfaces. When very cold air lies below warm air, light rays are bent downward toward the surface, thus tricking our eyes into thinking an object is located higher or is taller in appearance than it actually is.
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/graphics/photos/supmirg2.gif
Superior Mirage allows sight beyond the horizon: scale is greatly exaggerated.
The superior mirage can also make objects appear to be floating in the air or cause objects actually located below the horizon to appear above it, a condition called looming.
Sunset example http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/graphics/photos/sunrefract.gif
The superior mirage can also cause objects appear to be taller than they actually are, called towering, or shorter, a condition termed stooping.
For general coverage of mirages: http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/mirage1.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mz51fyJx94
btw: The earth curvature calculator can't be used where the light path is not linear. In this video it shows that a mirage is present.
On a winter day in Cal., with less chance of temperature layering, you won't see the islands...they will be below the true horizon.
re fe2 to fe16: The above analysis of temp inversion over water applies to all 14 exps, except fe11, the balloon test.
The density of air decreases with altitude so the light path goes from a large index of refraction near the ground to a low value at the balloon. This causes compression of the image ....the concave appearance of the ground.
...."the earth assumed a regularly hollowed or concave appearance--an optical illusion which increases as you recede from it." There's the answer right in the experiment.
*********
Realism is more than the reliability of the senses when addressing their proper objects, FE. It includes detecting fallacious metaphysics, as here - the false assumption that light paths are always linear.
Also, there is the incomplete preparation for a rational discussion - lack of research and ignorance of basic physical phenomena like temperature inversion and mirages.
New: the 10 rebukes of the hypothesis have been given before in the video 10 more... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8)
CR1- original pix from space
CR2- lunar eclipse
CR3- horizon without refraction/mirages
CR4- circuмnavigation
CR5- stars change going north or south
CR6- Sun;'s shadow at different latitudes
CR7- Angles of triangle > 180 deg.
CR8- Coriolis effect
CR9- time zones
CR10-planets are round
The response to each of the 10 CR proofs must follow rules 1-7..
That is: Questions; then Rebuttal of CR con arguments against fe1->16 and of the 10 new CR proofs of a false hypothesis; then New pro evidence.
AMDG
Dear Cassandar,
Thanks for the response. It is the first intelligent response for the explanation of 490 feet. I am familiar with the superior mirage concept. I read the links you proposed and watched the video. They are all very interesting. However they do not debunk the video I put up, nor the flat earth in general. Let me explain why.
Firstly you said contradict yourself in your own post. You state accurately that superior mirages will occur over cold water, but admitting that the video was done in the summer, you say that in the winter you would NOT see this superior mirage. When in fact it is the time you would most likely see it.
Your links also show superior mirages as being upside down. Generally they are, and yet my one is not. Now, if they are not upside down, they become double. This is what your video shows. I don't doubt it. But the island on my video does not do that either.
What one part of your video shows is in fact the law of convergence. There is a video on youtube called "red boat edited and explained" which shows this. It is actually one of the proofs of the flat earth ,because the top of the boat always remains at the same point, rather than go down which it should do on a round earth.
Finally there are two things to note about the nature of mirages. In general they are quite unstable and blurry. They therefore can appear almost "transparent". This is most certainly not the case with my video. An honest observer will recognise this.
The video again for those who are lost on this thread : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4oT2EbDONs
As for the rest of your post, the other points you make about the video do not substantially alter the reality of the missing 490 feet.
Since this is a thread about the proofs for the flat earth, you should start a thread about proofs for the globe earth if you want to talk about them.
In Jesus and Mary.
-
What IS a conspiracy is that there is a treaty between countries that allows no independent exploration of the Antarctic. Now, why would that be, do you suppose? What do they not want random explorers to see or find?
What treaty are you referring to? I am aware of The Antarctic Treaty, but this does not prohibit private or independent expeditions to Antarctica. On the contrary, the United States government has a policy that deals with private tours and expeditions to Antarctica:
http://www.state.gov/docuмents/organization/78214.pdf
Is there another treaty?
-
We are getting to you. :scared2: :scared2:
Why do you think you are "getting to" anybody?
If I was convinced or saw strong evidence that the earth is flat, I would say so with no hesitation. I have no problem expressing my tinfoil hat ideas even to people who find them shocking. It's no hair off my ass if the earth is flat. I just happen to think that it's round and that anybody beyond a caveman or a modern day trailer park dweller/make-believe wannabe conspiracy theorist with a third grade education knows it is. I proudly count myself among discerning conspiracy theorists--but I don't have time for make-believe fantasy bs.
:incense: Choosing to deny the Genesis account of the flat earth is very sacrilegious.
Of interest is the fact that in Saint Hildegard of Bingen, who lived from around 1096 to 1180 was a globalist..
'Going inward, we find ten light-green humps surrounding a violet layer of nested lines, as well as a blue-white layer that may correspond to the moist atmosphere. At the very center of this mandala we see what Hildegard called the “sandy globe of great magnitude,” which is the Earth itself, with what appears to be a river streaming through it. Each layer has its corresponding source of air (“whirlwinds”), depicted by a curious tri-faced form. The top of the picture is oriented to the East, the bottom to the West, the right to the South, and the left to the North.'
This illustrates the credibility of the insinuation that to deny the earth is flat is 'sacrilegiouis.
-
Scripture is to be interpreted literally unless otherwise specified. If you were familiar with scripture you would know that with dozens and dozens of passages regarding creation, earth, the sun, the moon and the the stars, it is impossible to reconcile the modern heliocentric pagan teaching with the description in scripture. Cameras, telescopes, computers and other high tech work hand in glove to prove from the scientific point of view what scripture has said all along. The earth is flat.
:rahrah:
-
Since your studies do not include admission of empirical evidence known about the moon's light, they are insufficient for insisting that the moon is exclusively a reflector and not self illuminated. From scripture to science the evidence mounts against the moon being only a reflector of light unless your studies have blinders on. In fact, all other illuminated bodies in the heavens are self illuminated, each with different light patterns and frequencies. Moonlight is also measurable in its unique temperature, color and distinguishing characteristics, not only in the science lab belonging to someone with an agenda, but demonstrable in one's own back yard. Now that I've collected data for myself, I know what is true.
It's called Radiative Cooling, and it works like this:
(http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/images/night_radiate.jpg)
The idea that light can cool something is nonsensical. It requires completely ignoring what light is and how energy is transmitted. It also requires ignoring the fact that you can actually analyze the polarization signature of the light coming from the moon, and see that it's consistent with light reflected off of a round object. And then there's the whole bit about the phases of the moon, and how they line up perfectly with the relative positions of the earth, moon, and sun at any given moment. But yea, if you ignore all of that (and some other things I'm probably forgetting), I suppose you could posit that the moon radiates its own "light".
-
:tinfoil:FE'rs -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8 -from MinutePhysics
-
Since your studies do not include admission of empirical evidence known about the moon's light, they are insufficient for insisting that the moon is exclusively a reflector and not self illuminated. From scripture to science the evidence mounts against the moon being only a reflector of light unless your studies have blinders on. In fact, all other illuminated bodies in the heavens are self illuminated, each with different light patterns and frequencies. Moonlight is also measurable in its unique temperature, color and distinguishing characteristics, not only in the science lab belonging to someone with an agenda, but demonstrable in one's own back yard. Now that I've collected data for myself, I know what is true.
It's called Radiative Cooling, and it works like this:
(http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/images/night_radiate.jpg)
The idea that light can cool something is nonsensical. It requires completely ignoring what light is and how energy is transmitted. It also requires ignoring the fact that you can actually analyze the polarization signature of the light coming from the moon, and see that it's consistent with light reflected off of a round object. And then there's the whole bit about the phases of the moon, and how they line up perfectly with the relative positions of the earth, moon, and sun at any given moment. But yea, if you ignore all of that (and some other things I'm probably forgetting), I suppose you could posit that the moon radiates its own "light".
I never said the moon light cools anything, number one. I said it is cooler than sunlight and of a completely different color and wavelength than the sun. Moonshine from a full moon is demonstrably cooler in direct moonlight than under a pergola for example. Try it yourself. I never said the moon wasn't round, number two. The phases of the moon do not make sense on a globe number three, because the light purported to light the moon is often from the wrong place and could not light the moon as if by the sun. In fact, there are many times where sun and moon are both visible above the horizon showing that it is impossible that the earth's shadow is in any way responsible for phases or eclipses.
-
:tinfoil:FE'rs -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8 -from MinutePhysics
The Flat Earth Rising Horizon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIXPo0ZA7Y
-
Looks like a ball to me.
Still has nothing to do with the shape that God made the earth.
So are you sticking to your moonlight-comes-from-inside-the-moon schtick?
Or are you now willing to admit that the illumination we see is caused by sunlight shining on the moon?
The surface of the moon doesn't do much for proving the light can be reflected either.
The moon reflects the light of the sun. This much is clear, especially when studying the moon, its phases, and the qualities of light and reflection in general. All evidence points to the moon as a reflector, and not a self-illuminating body.
Since your studies do not include admission of empirical evidence known about the moon's light, they are insufficient for insisting that the moon is exclusively a reflector and not self illuminated. From scripture to science the evidence mounts against the moon being only a reflector of light unless your studies have blinders on. In fact, all other illuminated bodies in the heavens are self illuminated, each with different light patterns and frequencies. Moonlight is also measurable in its unique temperature, color and distinguishing characteristics, not only in the science lab belonging to someone with an agenda, but demonstrable in one's own back yard. Now that I've collected data for myself, I know what is true.
My studies ARE based directly on empirical evidence, as well as experiments using scientific equipment. You obviously did not bother to read a previous post on the many reasons why the moon is not a self-illuminating object, which included explanations for everything you have highlighted in regards to moonlight. I have copied my earlier post. Feel free to comment on these:
All of the below-highlighted “proofs were offered for a self-illuminating moon.
“Fact” One: “Moonlight is totally different than sunlight. It measures different in every way. (Moonlight) is silver rather than golden …”
My Response: Moonlight is a product of reflection off the surface of the moon the light that is produced by the sun. Since the moon's materials absorb some light and reflect the rest, the resulting light will vary in intensity from the sun's light. Intensity can affect the way our brains and eyes perceive the light.
“Fact” Two: “(The moonlight) will destroy food left out rather than preserve it like sunlight.”
My Response: This is preposterous. There are many factors that contribute to food spoilage, not just "light".
“Fact” Three: “Full moonlight is cooler than moonlight blocked by a patio roof and this can be measured by an ordinary thermometer.”
My Response: Full moonlight is cooler because it is only a reflection of the sun's light. If the moon were a mirror, or mirror-like, it would reflect more of the sun's light, and also the heat produced by said light. The moon absorbs much of the sun's light and heat, and reflects only a small portion back to earth. The area of the patio, while being heated by the sun's light during the day, retains some of the heat for a few reasons (depending on construction methods): trapped heat due to air circulation, roofing, proximity to a warmed house, porch lights, etc.
“Fact” Four: "It is nearly impossible to read a newspaper by full moonlight because moonlight blocks colors in the color spectrum. This is why red roses appear colorless in full moonlight."
My Response: It does not block colors. Its reflected light is not as intense as the sun, which does not allow for a good reading experience. Our eyes adjust to the lack of light by switching to rod cells. These rods cells, while allowing for night vision, do not allow for color distinction as would cone cells. This is why roses appear without their red color at night.
As a fun fact, in order to retain night vision, one can use a blue LED. This blue light allows the rods in the eyes to remain active, while keeping the cones inactive (cones are no good for night vision). Our eyes, at low light, tend towards the blue spectrum. This is one reason why the light of the moon is said to be blue or silvery.
Reanalyze your collected data. You are mistaken.
-
Looks like a ball to me.
Still has nothing to do with the shape that God made the earth.
So are you sticking to your moonlight-comes-from-inside-the-moon schtick?
Or are you now willing to admit that the illumination we see is caused by sunlight shining on the moon?
The surface of the moon doesn't do much for proving the light can be reflected either.
The moon reflects the light of the sun. This much is clear, especially when studying the moon, its phases, and the qualities of light and reflection in general. All evidence points to the moon as a reflector, and not a self-illuminating body.
Since your studies do not include admission of empirical evidence known about the moon's light, they are insufficient for insisting that the moon is exclusively a reflector and not self illuminated. From scripture to science the evidence mounts against the moon being only a reflector of light unless your studies have blinders on. In fact, all other illuminated bodies in the heavens are self illuminated, each with different light patterns and frequencies. Moonlight is also measurable in its unique temperature, color and distinguishing characteristics, not only in the science lab belonging to someone with an agenda, but demonstrable in one's own back yard. Now that I've collected data for myself, I know what is true.
My studies ARE based directly on empirical evidence, as well as experiments using scientific equipment. You obviously did not bother to read a previous post on the many reasons why the moon is not a self-illuminating object, which included explanations for everything you have highlighted in regards to moonlight. I have copied my earlier post. Feel free to comment on these:
All of the below-highlighted “proofs were offered for a self-illuminating moon.
“Fact” One: “Moonlight is totally different than sunlight. It measures different in every way. (Moonlight) is silver rather than golden …”
My Response: Moonlight is a product of reflection off the surface of the moon the light that is produced by the sun. Since the moon's materials absorb some light and reflect the rest, the resulting light will vary in intensity from the sun's light. Intensity can affect the way our brains and eyes perceive the light.
“Fact” Two: “(The moonlight) will destroy food left out rather than preserve it like sunlight.”
My Response: This is preposterous. There are many factors that contribute to food spoilage, not just "light".
“Fact” Three: “Full moonlight is cooler than moonlight blocked by a patio roof and this can be measured by an ordinary thermometer.”
My Response: Full moonlight is cooler because it is only a reflection of the sun's light. If the moon were a mirror, or mirror-like, it would reflect more of the sun's light, and also the heat produced by said light. The moon absorbs much of the sun's light and heat, and reflects only a small portion back to earth.
“Fact” Four: "It is nearly impossible to read a newspaper by full moonlight because moonlight blocks colors in the color spectrum. This is why red roses appear colorless in full moonlight."
My Response: It does not block colors. Its reflected light is not as intense as the sun, which does not allow for a good reading experience. Our eyes adjust to the lack of light by switching to rod cells. These rods cells, while allowing for night vision, do not allow for color distinction as would cone cells. This is why roses appear without their red color at night.
As a fun fact, in order to retain night vision, one can use a blue LED. This blue light allows the rods in the eyes to remain active, while keeping the cones inactive (cones are no good for night vision). Our eyes, at low light, tend towards the blue spectrum. This is one reason why the light of the moon is said to be blue or silvery.
Reanalyze your collected data. You are mistaken.
As for moonlight being colder, it is colder in direct moonlight, warmer in indirect moonlight on the same night which is a completely different thing than claiming moonlight is just cooler than sunlight. Sunlight cannot be responsible for moonlight because the lights are totally different in kind. That would be impossible if the moon reflected sunlight since reflection means the same sunlight is coming off the moon. Light doesn't change its nature when bouncing off something, but remains the same. It cannot produce new properties foreign to the original light. As for the light blocking colors, your explanation is inadequate because it does not prove the light doesn't block colors. In fact, one can read a newspaper in very dim light, but not in full moonlight which is brighter than the dimmed sunlight. So it is you that must reanalyze your data, because I have seen for myself everything that I've posted. Next full moon, you ought to do the same.
-
Looks like a ball to me.
Still has nothing to do with the shape that God made the earth.
So are you sticking to your moonlight-comes-from-inside-the-moon schtick?
Or are you now willing to admit that the illumination we see is caused by sunlight shining on the moon?
The surface of the moon doesn't do much for proving the light can be reflected either.
The moon reflects the light of the sun. This much is clear, especially when studying the moon, its phases, and the qualities of light and reflection in general. All evidence points to the moon as a reflector, and not a self-illuminating body.
Since your studies do not include admission of empirical evidence known about the moon's light, they are insufficient for insisting that the moon is exclusively a reflector and not self illuminated. From scripture to science the evidence mounts against the moon being only a reflector of light unless your studies have blinders on. In fact, all other illuminated bodies in the heavens are self illuminated, each with different light patterns and frequencies. Moonlight is also measurable in its unique temperature, color and distinguishing characteristics, not only in the science lab belonging to someone with an agenda, but demonstrable in one's own back yard. Now that I've collected data for myself, I know what is true.
My studies ARE based directly on empirical evidence, as well as experiments using scientific equipment. You obviously did not bother to read a previous post on the many reasons why the moon is not a self-illuminating object, which included explanations for everything you have highlighted in regards to moonlight. I have copied my earlier post. Feel free to comment on these:
All of the below-highlighted “proofs were offered for a self-illuminating moon.
“Fact” One: “Moonlight is totally different than sunlight. It measures different in every way. (Moonlight) is silver rather than golden …”
My Response: Moonlight is a product of reflection off the surface of the moon the light that is produced by the sun. Since the moon's materials absorb some light and reflect the rest, the resulting light will vary in intensity from the sun's light. Intensity can affect the way our brains and eyes perceive the light.
“Fact” Two: “(The moonlight) will destroy food left out rather than preserve it like sunlight.”
My Response: This is preposterous. There are many factors that contribute to food spoilage, not just "light".
“Fact” Three: “Full moonlight is cooler than moonlight blocked by a patio roof and this can be measured by an ordinary thermometer.”
My Response: Full moonlight is cooler because it is only a reflection of the sun's light. If the moon were a mirror, or mirror-like, it would reflect more of the sun's light, and also the heat produced by said light. The moon absorbs much of the sun's light and heat, and reflects only a small portion back to earth.
“Fact” Four: "It is nearly impossible to read a newspaper by full moonlight because moonlight blocks colors in the color spectrum. This is why red roses appear colorless in full moonlight."
My Response: It does not block colors. Its reflected light is not as intense as the sun, which does not allow for a good reading experience. Our eyes adjust to the lack of light by switching to rod cells. These rods cells, while allowing for night vision, do not allow for color distinction as would cone cells. This is why roses appear without their red color at night.
As a fun fact, in order to retain night vision, one can use a blue LED. This blue light allows the rods in the eyes to remain active, while keeping the cones inactive (cones are no good for night vision). Our eyes, at low light, tend towards the blue spectrum. This is one reason why the light of the moon is said to be blue or silvery.
Reanalyze your collected data. You are mistaken.
As for moonlight being colder, it is colder in direct moonlight, warmer in indirect moonlight on the same night which is a completely different thing than claiming moonlight is just cooler than sunlight. Sunlight cannot be responsible for moonlight because the lights are totally different in kind. That would be impossible if the moon reflected sunlight since reflection means the same sunlight is coming off the moon. Light doesn't change its nature when bouncing off something, but remains the same. It cannot produce new properties foreign to the original light. As for the light blocking colors, your explanation is inadequate because it does not prove the light doesn't block colors. In fact, one can read a newspaper in very dim light, but not in full moonlight which is brighter than the dimmed sunlight. So it is you that must reanalyze your data, because I have seen for myself everything that I've posted. Next full moon, you ought to do the same.
It is colder because the moon doesn't reflect much heat from the sun's light. The moon's light appears different because of the way the brain and the eyes perceive colors and light, and because of the light's varying intensity.
The sun, which is self-illuminated, does not undergo phases as does the moon, which is not self-illuminated. I have seen shadows cast on the moon, using a high powered telescope. These shadows are as a result of another light source illuminating the moon.
The light reflected by the moon is not substantially different from the direct light of the sun. This can be tested through various means, including photography, light sensors, and other equipment.
I have been fascinated by the moon since before I could walk. I have researched the moon since before I could read. I have watched the moon ever since, and what I have observed and studied entirely refutes your "data".
Everything I have said is verifiable, and not just through simple observations, but through the use of scientific equipment as well. You have been unable to refute anything of which I have offered, though you may try to do so.
-
Looks like a ball to me.
Still has nothing to do with the shape that God made the earth.
So are you sticking to your moonlight-comes-from-inside-the-moon schtick?
Or are you now willing to admit that the illumination we see is caused by sunlight shining on the moon?
The surface of the moon doesn't do much for proving the light can be reflected either.
The moon reflects the light of the sun. This much is clear, especially when studying the moon, its phases, and the qualities of light and reflection in general. All evidence points to the moon as a reflector, and not a self-illuminating body.
Since your studies do not include admission of empirical evidence known about the moon's light, they are insufficient for insisting that the moon is exclusively a reflector and not self illuminated. From scripture to science the evidence mounts against the moon being only a reflector of light unless your studies have blinders on. In fact, all other illuminated bodies in the heavens are self illuminated, each with different light patterns and frequencies. Moonlight is also measurable in its unique temperature, color and distinguishing characteristics, not only in the science lab belonging to someone with an agenda, but demonstrable in one's own back yard. Now that I've collected data for myself, I know what is true.
My studies ARE based directly on empirical evidence, as well as experiments using scientific equipment. You obviously did not bother to read a previous post on the many reasons why the moon is not a self-illuminating object, which included explanations for everything you have highlighted in regards to moonlight. I have copied my earlier post. Feel free to comment on these:
All of the below-highlighted “proofs were offered for a self-illuminating moon.
“Fact” One: “Moonlight is totally different than sunlight. It measures different in every way. (Moonlight) is silver rather than golden …”
My Response: Moonlight is a product of reflection off the surface of the moon the light that is produced by the sun. Since the moon's materials absorb some light and reflect the rest, the resulting light will vary in intensity from the sun's light. Intensity can affect the way our brains and eyes perceive the light.
“Fact” Two: “(The moonlight) will destroy food left out rather than preserve it like sunlight.”
My Response: This is preposterous. There are many factors that contribute to food spoilage, not just "light".
“Fact” Three: “Full moonlight is cooler than moonlight blocked by a patio roof and this can be measured by an ordinary thermometer.”
My Response: Full moonlight is cooler because it is only a reflection of the sun's light. If the moon were a mirror, or mirror-like, it would reflect more of the sun's light, and also the heat produced by said light. The moon absorbs much of the sun's light and heat, and reflects only a small portion back to earth.
“Fact” Four: "It is nearly impossible to read a newspaper by full moonlight because moonlight blocks colors in the color spectrum. This is why red roses appear colorless in full moonlight."
My Response: It does not block colors. Its reflected light is not as intense as the sun, which does not allow for a good reading experience. Our eyes adjust to the lack of light by switching to rod cells. These rods cells, while allowing for night vision, do not allow for color distinction as would cone cells. This is why roses appear without their red color at night.
As a fun fact, in order to retain night vision, one can use a blue LED. This blue light allows the rods in the eyes to remain active, while keeping the cones inactive (cones are no good for night vision). Our eyes, at low light, tend towards the blue spectrum. This is one reason why the light of the moon is said to be blue or silvery.
Reanalyze your collected data. You are mistaken.
As for moonlight being colder, it is colder in direct moonlight, warmer in indirect moonlight on the same night which is a completely different thing than claiming moonlight is just cooler than sunlight. Sunlight cannot be responsible for moonlight because the lights are totally different in kind. That would be impossible if the moon reflected sunlight since reflection means the same sunlight is coming off the moon. Light doesn't change its nature when bouncing off something, but remains the same. It cannot produce new properties foreign to the original light. As for the light blocking colors, your explanation is inadequate because it does not prove the light doesn't block colors. In fact, one can read a newspaper in very dim light, but not in full moonlight which is brighter than the dimmed sunlight. So it is you that must reanalyze your data, because I have seen for myself everything that I've posted. Next full moon, you ought to do the same.
It is colder because the moon doesn't reflect much heat from the sun's light. The moon's light appears different because of the way the brain and the eyes perceive colors and light, and because of the light's varying intensity.
The sun, which is self-illuminated, does not undergo phases as does the moon, which is not self-illuminated. I have seen shadows cast on the moon, using a high powered telescope. These shadows are as a result of another light source illuminating the moon.
The light reflected by the moon is not substantially different from the direct light of the sun. This can be tested through various means, including photography, light sensors, and other equipment.
I have been fascinated by the moon since before I could walk. I have researched the moon since before I could read. I have watched the moon ever since, and what I have observed and studied entirely refutes your "data".
Everything I have said is verifiable, and not just through simple observations, but through the use of scientific equipment as well. You have been unable to refute anything of which I have offered, though you may try to do so.
I appreciate your view, but what are your sources? You tell me to experiment at the next full moon, which I have done, but have you? We don't have to be at odds here, we are examining this for truth content, not just swapping data about who's idea is better. There is more to know, is all I'm saying.
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/o_W280R_Jt8[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/VNqNnUJVcVs[/youtube]
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/o_W280R_Jt8[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/VNqNnUJVcVs[/youtube]
There is no edge to fall off of the flat earth. :wink:
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/HebrewConceptEarth1_zpsvsgwjwlh.jpg.html)
-
We are getting to you. :scared2: :scared2:
Why do you think you are "getting to" anybody?
If I was convinced or saw strong evidence that the earth is flat, I would say so with no hesitation. I have no problem expressing my tinfoil hat ideas even to people who find them shocking. It's no hair off my ass if the earth is flat. I just happen to think that it's round and that anybody beyond a caveman or a modern day trailer park dweller/make-believe wannabe conspiracy theorist with a third grade education knows it is. I proudly count myself among discerning conspiracy theorists--but I don't have time for make-believe fantasy bs.
:incense: Choosing to deny the Genesis account of the flat earth is very sacrilegious.
Of interest is the fact that in Saint Hildegard of Bingen, who lived from around 1096 to 1180 was a globalist..
'Going inward, we find ten light-green humps surrounding a violet layer of nested lines, as well as a blue-white layer that may correspond to the moist atmosphere. At the very center of this mandala we see what Hildegard called the “sandy globe of great magnitude,” which is the Earth itself, with what appears to be a river streaming through it. Each layer has its corresponding source of air (“whirlwinds”), depicted by a curious tri-faced form. The top of the picture is oriented to the East, the bottom to the West, the right to the South, and the left to the North.'
This illustrates the credibility of the insinuation that to deny the earth is flat is 'sacrilegiouis.
Cassini,
This, like the sphere in the Infant Jesus hands and other representations of spheres are simply the hebrew view of the world as illustrated on this thread between your post and this one by another user.
A sphere is representative of unity and perfection. This is why creation is sometimes spoken of like this. It does not prove one way or another the sphericity of the earth.
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/o_W280R_Jt8[/youtube]
Rob Skiba responded pretty well to most of these objections at the following link http://testingtheglobe.com/quest2.html It is towards the bottom of the page.
Ironically he was not flat earth at all which he admits.
The lunar eclipses model is something that stumps him. It shoudn't.
In science there are always mysteries. Modern science in relation to the globe earth is build on faulty presuppositions. Just because it can construct an explanation is no more convincing than imaging a pig that can fly. Always go back to basics and what we can see with out eyes.
-
on lunar eclipses, Dubay responds well to it in the following video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0dDw-8Nhow&index=38&list=PLBNnyfzA49uNWPeeSXaTz_HJTdVi-Nlgd
For general questions the resistance flat earth forum has some good stuff too.
-
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=moonlight+is+cold+silvery+putrifies+flat+earth&d=4632699398390950&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=l-SItiCSCD86tU8yRnHv1EyxYT2h5fC6
Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881] Chap XI
Moon facts provided by scientists, astronomists, and experiments.
-
Everything I have said is verifiable, and not just through simple observations, but through the use of scientific equipment as well. You have been unable to refute anything of which I have offered, though you may try to do so.
Manuel,
You can conduct happenby's experiments for yourself in just 5 more days on the full moon on the 16th!
-
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/ Flat earth? Go check it out...
-
Everything I have said is verifiable, and not just through simple observations, but through the use of scientific equipment as well. You have been unable to refute anything of which I have offered, though you may try to do so.
Manuel,
You can conduct happenby's experiments for yourself in just 5 more days on the full moon on the 16th!
Hey, mw2016! Traditional flat earth site. See post above. Maybe you're already there. :rahrah:
-
Everything I have said is verifiable, and not just through simple observations, but through the use of scientific equipment as well. You have been unable to refute anything of which I have offered, though you may try to do so.
Manuel,
You can conduct happenby's experiments for yourself in just 5 more days on the full moon on the 16th!
What is the matter with what I have already done, and what others have done before me? I do not understand how some people can deny that which is quite elemental, that the moon is reflecting, not producing, light.
I have seen no explanation for the dark shadows on the surface of the moon, the phases of the moon and other issues that face the proponents of a self-illuminating moon.
There is no solid evidence for a self-illuminating moon. You might as well argue that the moon is made of cheese...
-
Everything I have said is verifiable, and not just through simple observations, but through the use of scientific equipment as well. You have been unable to refute anything of which I have offered, though you may try to do so.
Manuel,
You can conduct happenby's experiments for yourself in just 5 more days on the full moon on the 16th!
What is the matter with what I have already done, and what others have done before me? I do not understand how some people can deny that which is quite elemental, that the moon is reflecting, not producing, light.
I have seen no explanation for the dark shadows on the surface of the moon, the phases of the moon and other issues that face the proponents of a self-illuminating moon.
There is no solid evidence for a self-illuminating moon. You might as well argue that the moon is made of cheese...
The problem is a little bigger than the moon. It has to do with scripture, tradition, reason, truth. The ancient pagan mystery cabbalistic theory of global earth barreling through space is the foundation of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Earth is not moving. Already one big lie NASA! God speaks to us about building on a good foundation and He isn't a liar or trickster supplying us with a curve to do it. Heliocentrism is the spawn of pagans, and the enemy of the Church. It promotes circular reasoning and when examined in the light of day, proves ridiculous. There is no way that stars are huge worlds bigger than the heliocentric sun when scripture speaks of 1/3 of them falling to earth. Nor was the Star of Bethlehem bigger than the sun, millions of miles away, and still manage to show the magi where Jesus lay. There is no way that water bends around the outside of a ball and stick to it while little children hop and play happily next to it. There is no way that people stand upright on all sides of a ball and don't fall off. Boats don't disappear beyond the curve as we were once told. Light houses are visible from tremendous distances incompatible with curvature of a ball. Moses was commanded to observe and build the first tabernacle as a microcosm of the earth and it wasn't a ball. Jesus ASCENDED into heaven ABOVE, He didn't "go out" or "down" relative to those on the opposite side of a whirling sphere. Pope Alexander VII lamented that Copernican doctrine denied the Incarnation. People need to hold their ego at the door long enough to really consider what's at stake and observe that the globalist agenda has a physical support system making science into god. St. Nilus warns the people of our times: "And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! -- he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases." It took centuries, but this theory is promoted by world banksters, elitist power brokers who are Copernican indoctrinating, revolutionary, global warming liars bringing the big bang, culling our kids for atheistic evolutionary science. And lets not forget to mention the NASA moon hoax with its fake pictures of the earth and ginormous lie about the moon landing, a company whose monster budget is wasted on earth orbiting planes, not space rockets, squeezing the last scientific dime out of unsuspecting Americans. This lie is without question the work of Satan. For that reason alone, to not look into it with an open mind, to consider it more carefully, is treachery.
-
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/ Flat earth? Go check it out...
The linked site offers only one video as the best one for ships going away from shore and what happens to their image as viewed from shoreline.
There is a tall sail boat's mast and sail seen at minute 2 on the left which moves to the right. At minute 2:30 they mention the sail boat's sail but they fail to notice how the hull of the sailboat is entirely obscured already.
Likewise they fail to notice that the hull and deck and cabin of the subject ship all are lost to view as the ship sails over the curvature of the earth, probably at 15 miles distance. But they never identify the distance to any of the targets. Very unscientific!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/0xWsuFLdgBs[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/0xWsuFLdgBs[/youtube]
I'm posting the same video twice so you can watch one of them and then compare the cover image of the other one to later views of the same boat when most of the boat is obscured by the water and mirror line and distortion above the water.
-
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/ Flat earth? Go check it out...
The linked site offers only one video as the best one for ships going away from shore and what happens to their image as viewed from shoreline.
There is a tall sail boat's mast and sail seen at minute 2 on the left which moves to the right. At minute 2:30 they mention the sail boat's sail but they fail to notice how the hull of the sailboat is entirely obscured already.
Likewise they fail to notice that the hull and deck and cabin of the subject ship all are lost to view as the ship sails over the curvature of the earth, probably at 15 miles distance. But they never identify the distance to any of the targets. Very unscientific!
I'm posting the same video twice so you can watch one of them and then compare the cover image of the other one to later views of the same boat when most of the boat is obscured by the water and mirror line and distortion above the water.
Mr Obstat,
The reason for your objection is because of convergence. The top of the boat remains level with what it always was. This is in fact a proof of the flat earth when you think about it. If it was curved the top of the boat would descend. It does not. Instead boats coverge as it goes from our sight. The same way the sun is bigger at sunset, etc etc.
This lady here explains this [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/IdwIMtz8owI[/youtube]
-
Everything I have said is verifiable, and not just through simple observations, but through the use of scientific equipment as well. You have been unable to refute anything of which I have offered, though you may try to do so.
Manuel,
You can conduct happenby's experiments for yourself in just 5 more days on the full moon on the 16th!
Hey, mw2016! Traditional flat earth site. See post above. Maybe you're already there. :rahrah:
Will check it out!
:cowboy:
-
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/ Flat earth? Go check it out...
The linked site offers only one video as the best one for ships going away from shore and what happens to their image as viewed from shoreline.
There is a tall sail boat's mast and sail seen at minute 2 on the left which moves to the right. At minute 2:30 they mention the sail boat's sail but they fail to notice how the hull of the sailboat is entirely obscured already.
Likewise they fail to notice that the hull and deck and cabin of the subject ship all are lost to view as the ship sails over the curvature of the earth, probably at 15 miles distance. But they never identify the distance to any of the targets. Very unscientific!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/0xWsuFLdgBs[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/0xWsuFLdgBs[/youtube]
I'm posting the same video twice so you can watch one of them and then compare the cover image of the other one to later views of the same boat when most of the boat is obscured by the water and mirror line and distortion above the water.
What you fail to understand is that the original argument was that boats disappear over the horizon. Yet, when zoomed in, the boat reappears. Boats do not disappear over the horizon, they simple grow smaller and smaller and the relative size at great distance shrinks them too small to see anymore. This is proof of flat water, flat earth, not proof of the ball.
-
Clearly, the earth really is flat as this video definitively proves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvAk9718Jo8
-
Clearly, the earth really is flat as this video definitively proves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvAk9718Jo8
Ooooh... Snarky shill bait for the unsuspecting designed to kill interest in the flat earth by those who fear truth.
-
Clearly, the earth really is flat as this video definitively proves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvAk9718Jo8
Ooh, haha - when you have no argument, make fun of your opponent! Good one!
:fryingpan:
-
Clearly, the earth really is flat as this video definitively proves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvAk9718Jo8
Ooh, haha - when you have no argument, make fun of your opponent! Good one!
:fryingpan:
Interestingly, Catholics have endured this tactic for centuries, yet they don't hesitate to use it on fellow Catholics before fully considering an argument they fear.
:clown: to the left of us, :jester: to the right.
-
Clearly, the earth really is flat as this video definitively proves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvAk9718Jo8
Ooh, haha - when you have no argument, make fun of your opponent! Good one!
:fryingpan:
Interestingly, Catholics have endured this tactic for centuries, yet they don't hesitate to use it on fellow Catholics before fully considering an argument they fear.
:clown: to the left of us, :jester: to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you... LOL
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/8StG4fFWHqg[/youtube]
-
Clearly, the earth really is flat as this video definitively proves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvAk9718Jo8
Ooh, haha - when you have no argument, make fun of your opponent! Good one!
:fryingpan:
Interestingly, Catholics have endured this tactic for centuries, yet they don't hesitate to use it on fellow Catholics before fully considering an argument they fear.
:clown: to the left of us, :jester: to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you... LOL
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/8StG4fFWHqg[/youtube]
The beauty of being Catholic today is that the junk you left behind still applies... and secretly feels so good! Crazy-fun-nailed-it, girl.
-
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/ Flat earth? Go check it out...
The linked site offers only one video as the best one for ships going away from shore and what happens to their image as viewed from shoreline.
There is a tall sail boat's mast and sail seen at minute 2 on the left which moves to the right. At minute 2:30 they mention the sail boat's sail but they fail to notice how the hull of the sailboat is entirely obscured already.
Likewise they fail to notice that the hull and deck and cabin of the subject ship all are lost to view as the ship sails over the curvature of the earth, probably at 15 miles distance. But they never identify the distance to any of the targets. Very unscientific!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/0xWsuFLdgBs[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/0xWsuFLdgBs[/youtube]
I'm posting the same video twice so you can watch one of them and then compare the cover image of the other one to later views of the same boat when most of the boat is obscured by the water and mirror line and distortion above the water.
What you fail to understand is that the original argument was that boats disappear over the horizon. Yet, when zoomed in, the boat reappears. Boats do not disappear over the horizon, they simple grow smaller and smaller and the relative size at great distance shrinks them too small to see anymore. This is proof of flat water, flat earth, not proof of the ball.
If you let the camera run until the boat entirely disappears, you would see the boat disappear. But they stopped the video before the mast dips below the horizon. You can see it ALMOST dip out of sight but since the video stops short of that, they're claiming that the boat never does vanish from sight. That's plainly deceptive. Any you're buying into their deception because you WANT to buy into it. You seem to take pleasure in deceiving yourself, sadly.
I just finished addressing this point and you say I "fail to understand" it. There really is no hope for you to comprehend the basics of telephoto and telescope use, is there? Do you have any experience with telephoto and telescope use, especially over a large body of water?
At 9:43 the boat's cabin and roof disappear altogether. But the narrator says the whole boat is still visible. WRONG.
You can get an enlargement of distant objects over the horizon, but there is distortion, which the video admits. The problem is that the video doesn't recognize what the "mirror line" is, nor do you. That line changes with the temperature of the day, the surface conditions, sunlight on the water surface and other factors like evaporation.
Actually, this video does a pretty nice job of identifying the mirror line for what it is, even at varying distances for near and far objects. But that's as far as they take it. Like with the whole video, they stop short of the real point of the whole thing. Their explanation therefore falls short of the mark. It is insufficient.
How convenient!
Just as a straw inserted into a glass of water appears to bend as it goes through the surface down into the water, so too what you see right at the surface of the water through a telescope bends at the surface of the water over the distance.
They never identified how far it was to the ship passing into obscurity. But you can easily see, if you dare to be honest, that the visible top part of the boat's mast is all you can identify clearly at the end of the video, because the cabin, deck and hull of the boat are NO LONGER VISIBLE at all. They are under the mirror line, because the mirror line is the surface of the water. It simply reflects what is seen above it to make it appear that what is below the mirror line is still above the water. They couldn't dare let the video run until the mast dips down to the mirror line, because that would let you see the entire image of the boat disappear, even though you could still identify the shape of the mast an instant before it disappears.
This is so simple it's incredible that flat-earthers have made it such a complicated mess. But when you're bent on deceiving yourself along with others, there is no end to the confabulations you can dream up.
-
The video ends at 10:37, and if you can manage to stop it at 10:36 you will see that the top of the mast, reflected by the mirror line and appearing as upside-down below the mirror line, is starting to rise above the apparent water surface. The gap between the blue water surface and the upside down reflection of the mast would grow larger until the mast vanishes at the mirror line. Then the viewer would see how the flat-earthers are making it all up, most obviously.
If they had let the video run for another minute, you would see the mast appear to shrink vertically the rest of the way (as it has been doing since 9:33 when the cabin roof vanished - not 9:43 as I said above, a mistake) like a baton suspended in air above the water, getting shorter, yet still visible at the top full size, not "shrinking" in width. It only shrinks in HEIGHT. I say "baton" because there is a bulge on the top of the mast that is now appearing as a bulge at the top AND a bulge at the bottom, but the bottom bulge is a reflection of the top portion, a reflection centered at the rising mirror line.
They don't let the viewer see this because when the mast would entirely vanish from sight at the mirror line when it would look like it's about 8 feet above the water, it would do nothing for their false claim that the boat is still entirely visible full size. And they're trying at all cost to maintain their false claim that the boat continues to be visible full size, even while they say it's too far away to see because it's too small.
So which is it, full size or too small? That depends on what your present point is you're trying to make. Flat-earthers change their outlook to support their crazy claim, as needed to support their crazy claim, even if it means contradicting themselves.
-
If you let the camera run until the boat entirely disappears, you would see the boat disappear. But they stopped the video before the mast dips below the horizon. You can see it ALMOST dip out of sight but since the video stops short of that, they're claiming that the boat never does vanish from sight. That's plainly deceptive. Any you're buying into their deception because you WANT to buy into it. You seem to take pleasure in deceiving yourself, sadly.
You can get an enlargement of distant objects over the horizon, but there is distortion, which the video admits. The problem is that the video doesn't recognize what the "mirror line" is, nor do you. That line changes with the temperature of the day, the surface conditions, sunlight on the water surface and other factors like evaporation.
Just as a straw inserted into a glass of water appears to bend as it goes through the surface down into the water, so too what you see right at the surface of the water through a telescope bends at the surface of the water over the distance.
They never identified how far it was to the ship passing into obscurity. But you can easily see, if you dare to be honest, that the visible top part of the boat's mast is all you can identify clearly at the end of the video, because the cabin, deck and hull of the boat are NO LONGER VISIBLE at all.
We do not deny that the boat would disappear. This is limit of the vision of the camera. This is all. The reason is because of convergence. This is what the horizon line is. Convergence is greater the closer you are to the ground.
With very large objects like in the video much discussed before (the unexplained 490 feet) , the bottom of the mountain will be obscured, but the size of the object will carry it through.
In the following video, the lady explains the concept of convergence while taping another ship going out.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/IdwIMtz8owI[/youtube]
the proof that the earth is flat is that the boat's mast should not be at the same level. It should descend, but it does not.
-
If you let the camera run until the boat entirely disappears, you would see the boat disappear. But they stopped the video before the mast dips below the horizon. You can see it ALMOST dip out of sight but since the video stops short of that, they're claiming that the boat never does vanish from sight. That's plainly deceptive. Any you're buying into their deception because you WANT to buy into it. You seem to take pleasure in deceiving yourself, sadly.
You can get an enlargement of distant objects over the horizon, but there is distortion, which the video admits. The problem is that the video doesn't recognize what the "mirror line" is, nor do you. That line changes with the temperature of the day, the surface conditions, sunlight on the water surface and other factors like evaporation.
Just as a straw inserted into a glass of water appears to bend as it goes through the surface down into the water, so too what you see right at the surface of the water through a telescope bends at the surface of the water over the distance.
They never identified how far it was to the ship passing into obscurity. But you can easily see, if you dare to be honest, that the visible top part of the boat's mast is all you can identify clearly at the end of the video, because the cabin, deck and hull of the boat are NO LONGER VISIBLE at all.
We do not deny that the boat would disappear. This is limit of the vision of the camera. This is all. The reason is because of convergence. This is what the horizon line is. Convergence is greater the closer you are to the ground.
With very large objects like in the video much discussed before (the unexplained 490 feet) , the bottom of the mountain will be obscured, but the size of the object will carry it through.
In the following video, the lady explains the concept of convergence while taping another ship going out.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/IdwIMtz8owI[/youtube]
the proof that the earth is flat is that the boat's mast should not be at the same level. It should descend, but it does not.
You haven't shown any "proof that the earth is flat" with the mast of the ship. The same distortion and "convergence" you have said hides the clear image of any distant object you now claim is proving the boat's mast should not be at the same level. Can you make up your mind?
This cargo ship's hull disappears as it goes out to sea for the precise reason that the hull recedes below the visible horizon because of the earth's curvature. You see the hull (you can't miss it because it's BIG and RED) at the beginning, and as the ship goes away the hull disappears. You can't get any simpler than that.
If there were no curvature on the sea you would still see the hull, just as you can still see the mast, and you would ALWAYS see the hull, even at great distance, like across the Atlantic Ocean. But you don't. You don't see the hull because it's down low and you do see the mast because it's up high. Period. And the reason you can't see the big red hull even at 20 miles (let alone a thousand or more!) is because it's no longer visible, being below the surface of the ocean as viewed from the shore.
It's very simple, but you flat-earthers keep trying to make it complicated.
-
If you let the camera run until the boat entirely disappears, you would see the boat disappear. But they stopped the video before the mast dips below the horizon. You can see it ALMOST dip out of sight but since the video stops short of that, they're claiming that the boat never does vanish from sight. That's plainly deceptive. Any you're buying into their deception because you WANT to buy into it. You seem to take pleasure in deceiving yourself, sadly.
You can get an enlargement of distant objects over the horizon, but there is distortion, which the video admits. The problem is that the video doesn't recognize what the "mirror line" is, nor do you. That line changes with the temperature of the day, the surface conditions, sunlight on the water surface and other factors like evaporation.
Just as a straw inserted into a glass of water appears to bend as it goes through the surface down into the water, so too what you see right at the surface of the water through a telescope bends at the surface of the water over the distance.
They never identified how far it was to the ship passing into obscurity. But you can easily see, if you dare to be honest, that the visible top part of the boat's mast is all you can identify clearly at the end of the video, because the cabin, deck and hull of the boat are NO LONGER VISIBLE at all.
We do not deny that the boat would disappear. This is limit of the vision of the camera. This is all. The reason is because of convergence. This is what the horizon line is. Convergence is greater the closer you are to the ground.
With very large objects like in the video much discussed before (the unexplained 490 feet) , the bottom of the mountain will be obscured, but the size of the object will carry it through.
In the following video, the lady explains the concept of convergence while taping another ship going out.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/IdwIMtz8owI[/youtube]
the proof that the earth is flat is that the boat's mast should not be at the same level. It should descend, but it does not.
You haven't shown any "proof that the earth is flat" with the mast of the ship. The same distortion and "convergence" you have said hides the clear image of any distant object you now claim is proving the boat's mast should not be at the same level. Can you make up your mind?
This cargo ship's hull disappears as it goes out to sea for the precise reason that the hull recedes below the visible horizon because of the earth's curvature. You see the hull (you can't miss it because it's BIG and RED) at the beginning, and as the ship goes away the hull disappears. You can't get any simpler than that.
If there were no curvature on the sea you would still see the hull, just as you can still see the mast, and you would ALWAYS see the hull, even at great distance, like across the Atlantic Ocean. But you don't. You don't see the hull because it's down low and you do see the mast because it's up high. Period. And the reason you can't see the big red hull even at 20 miles (let alone a thousand or more!) is because it's no longer visible, being below the surface of the ocean as viewed from the shore.
It's very simple, but you flat-earthers keep trying to make it complicated.
It is so simple. :wink:
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)
-
So now which of the 4 photos are you saying is simple?
Or are you trying to compete with NASA now?
You had better be careful buying a diamond because cubic zirconia looks exactly like it.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoissanitegems.co.uk%2Fimage%2Fdata%2Fblogpics%2Fcz_v_moissanite.jpg&sp=a998efb403f7987d8367746a149859ce)
-
So now which of the 4 photos are you saying is simple?
Or are you trying to compete with NASA now?
You had better be careful buying a diamond because cubic zirconia looks exactly like it.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoissanitegems.co.uk%2Fimage%2Fdata%2Fblogpics%2Fcz_v_moissanite.jpg&sp=a998efb403f7987d8367746a149859ce)
All four photos I posted with the flat horizon are simple. :wink:
-
You haven't shown any "proof that the earth is flat" with the mast of the ship. The same distortion and "convergence" you have said hides the clear image of any distant object you now claim is proving the boat's mast should not be at the same level. Can you make up your mind?
This cargo ship's hull disappears as it goes out to sea for the precise reason that the hull recedes below the visible horizon because of the earth's curvature. You see the hull (you can't miss it because it's BIG and RED) at the beginning, and as the ship goes away the hull disappears. You can't get any simpler than that.
If there were no curvature on the sea you would still see the hull, just as you can still see the mast, and you would ALWAYS see the hull, even at great distance, like across the Atlantic Ocean. But you don't. You don't see the hull because it's down low and you do see the mast because it's up high. Period. And the reason you can't see the big red hull even at 20 miles (let alone a thousand or more!) is because it's no longer visible, being below the surface of the ocean as viewed from the shore.
It's very simple, but you flat-earthers keep trying to make it complicated.
The mast should descend as the hull disappears. It clearly does not. It remains always at the same level. If you watch the video I included she explains this very well.
-
It is so simple. :wink:
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)
Yes!
:rahrah:
-
It is so simple. :wink:
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/jfkdjfsskfsk/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg) (http://s1073.photobucket.com/user/jfkdjfsskfsk/media/flat-earth-is-flat1_zpsqnb4a1ox.jpg.html)
Yes!
:rahrah:
:sign-surrender: My face is not a globe.
-
Horror of horrors, this thread is still going. Kudos to folks like Neil Obstat for sticking in there! Here's an easy test for the point of convergence:
Every single one of these objects are shrinking much faster vertically than they are horizontally (y-axis versus x-axis). If this were POC on a flat earth, both the height and width would reduce at the same rate.
On NASA being the big bad CGI conspiracy generator: All international space agencies have released images of a spherical Earth. Just in case one is tempted to blame the West only, that includes Russia's Roscomos and China's CNSA.
-
All international space agencies have released images of a spherical Earth. Just in case one is tempted to blame the West only, that includes Russia's Roscomos and China's CNSA.
Wait - so you acknowledge the worldwide conspiracy that is coordinated by Luciferian тαℓмυdic Jewry, yet you somehow have a hard time believing a few countries' space programs might collude as to what is to be found "up there"??
Okey dokey....
:fryingpan:
:laugh2:
:roll-laugh1:
-
:cheers:
All international space agencies have released images of a spherical Earth. Just in case one is tempted to blame the West only, that includes Russia's Roscomos and China's CNSA.
Wait - so you acknowledge the worldwide conspiracy that is coordinated by Luciferian тαℓмυdic Jewry, yet you somehow have a hard time believing a few countries' space programs might collude as to what is to be found "up there"??
Okey dokey....
:fryingpan:
:laugh2:
:roll-laugh1:
So true, mw2016
The elite conspiracy is a flat out global deception of kings over pawns.
-
...
-
Prophecy of St. Nilus:
...The Churches of God will be deprived of God-fearing and pious pastors, and woe to the Christians remaining in the world at that time; they will completely lose their faith because they will lack the opportunity of seeing the light of knowledge from anyone at all. Then they will separate themselves out of the world in holy refuges in search of lightening their spiritual sufferings, but everywhere they will meet obstacles and constraints. And all this will result from the fact that the Antichrist wants to be Lord over everything and become the ruler of the whole universe, and he will produce miracles and fantastic signs. He will also give depraved wisdom to an unhappy man so that he will discover a way by which one man can carry on a conversation with another from one end of the earth to the other. At that time men will also fly through the air like birds and descend to the bottom of the sea like fish. And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! -- he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases.
-
Some Catholics are waking up to the realization that NASA has provably lied about earth moving. And NASA continues to lie, culling millions and millions of dollars, deceiving billions of people who actually defend the spinning, wobbling, careening earth jetting earth through space. :facepalm:
Of those who have seen the truth about fixed earth, it is scarcely imaginable that most of them still continue to believe NASA when they say that earth is a ball.
That is so weird, inexplicable and illogical.
Someone please (if you can) explain how/why NASA is finally telling the truth about earth being a ball, after lying about moving earth and the "moon landings"?
If there is something to learn, I'm anxious to hear. But something tells me there will be a lot of smarmy joking, snappy barbs, or worse, the time consuming polyester fill that makes no sense.
-
Prophecy of St. Nilus:
...The Churches of God will be deprived of God-fearing and pious pastors, and woe to the Christians remaining in the world at that time; they will completely lose their faith because they will lack the opportunity of seeing the light of knowledge from anyone at all. Then they will separate themselves out of the world in holy refuges in search of lightening their spiritual sufferings, but everywhere they will meet obstacles and constraints. And all this will result from the fact that the Antichrist wants to be Lord over everything and become the ruler of the whole universe, and he will produce miracles and fantastic signs. He will also give depraved wisdom to an unhappy man so that he will discover a way by which one man can carry on a conversation with another from one end of the earth to the other. At that time men will also fly through the air like birds and descend to the bottom of the sea like fish. And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! -- he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases.
That is interesting. It sounds a bit similar to the Mother Shipton poem, because I think she mentions airplanes and submarines.
-
Prophecy of St. Nilus:
...The Churches of God will be deprived of God-fearing and pious pastors, and woe to the Christians remaining in the world at that time; they will completely lose their faith because they will lack the opportunity of seeing the light of knowledge from anyone at all. Then they will separate themselves out of the world in holy refuges in search of lightening their spiritual sufferings, but everywhere they will meet obstacles and constraints. And all this will result from the fact that the Antichrist wants to be Lord over everything and become the ruler of the whole universe, and he will produce miracles and fantastic signs. He will also give depraved wisdom to an unhappy man so that he will discover a way by which one man can carry on a conversation with another from one end of the earth to the other. At that time men will also fly through the air like birds and descend to the bottom of the sea like fish. And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! -- he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases.
That is interesting. It sounds a bit similar to the Mother Shipton poem, because I think she mentions airplanes and submarines.
St. Nilus does too, I just sent the truncated, apropos section. The evidence mounts.
-
Horror of horrors, this thread is still going. Kudos to folks like Neil Obstat for sticking in there! Here's an easy test for the point of convergence:
Every single one of these objects are shrinking much faster vertically than they are horizontally (y-axis versus x-axis). If this were POC on a flat earth, both the height and width would reduce at the same rate.
On NASA being the big bad CGI conspiracy generator: All international space agencies have released images of a spherical Earth. Just in case one is tempted to blame the West only, that includes Russia's Roscomos and China's CNSA.
The objects don't shrink that much. Look again. They blur out of sight gradually.
POC on flat earth means bottom blurs out first, because it is closest to horizon.
Convergence is greater closer to the horizon than it is for objects higher up. If the object was high then it would "shrink" in the sense that it gets smaller as it goes further away. But that is what is not under discussion.
No one said it was just NASA. The other agencies do it too, but in a worse way.
You made an attempt to think which is commendable. You shouldn't mock us. You know we are serious.
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/ for more.
-
Kudos to folks like Neil Obstat for sticking in there!
I agree.
The more times people who believe the is a globe stick their feet in their mouth, many more people come to realize the earth is flat. I say, BRING IT ON.
I am also grateful to Neil Obstat. :wink:
-
Today on Neil Cavuto on Fox, Steve Wynn said he is prepared to believe the earth is flat.
:popcorn:
-
The other good question, which is worth repeating, is why doesn't NASA turn around the Hubble Telescope and take a picture of earth?
It's supposedly been "out there" for twenty years or so, and yet they can't be bothered to take a legitimate picture of earth, showing it to be round?
This tells me one of two things:
1. Earth is NOT round.
or,
2. There is no Hubble Telescope "out there."
Actually, both 1. and 2, could be true - since I already know 1. is TRUE.
-
The other good question, which is worth repeating, is why doesn't NASA turn around the Hubble Telescope and take a picture of earth?
It's supposedly been "out there" for twenty years or so, and yet they can't be bothered to take a legitimate picture of earth, showing it to be round?
This tells me one of two things:
1. Earth is NOT round.
or,
2. There is no Hubble Telescope "out there."
Actually, both 1. and 2, could be true - since I already know 1. is TRUE.
Good one again! NASA's cheap theatrics, devoid of even one clear shot of ball earth...amazing. Yet NASA brags about their high def camera capabilities that supposedly capture incredibly vivid pictures of moon, sun and planets. :facepalm:
Consider the name Hubble and from whence it comes and the actual picture NASA is providing becomes all too clear. Just not of round earth.
-
:surprised:
Today on Neil Cavuto on Fox, Steve Wynn said he is prepared to believe the earth is flat.
:popcorn:
:surprised: Hmmm...snacks are definitely in order for this episode of "As the World Turns".
-
The other good question, which is worth repeating, is why doesn't NASA turn around the Hubble Telescope and take a picture of earth?
It's supposedly been "out there" for twenty years or so, and yet they can't be bothered to take a legitimate picture of earth, showing it to be round?
This tells me one of two things:
1. Earth is NOT round.
or,
2. There is no Hubble Telescope "out there."
Actually, both 1. and 2, could be true - since I already know 1. is TRUE.
And it comes as no surprise to anyone that the same person who is incapable of understanding how perspective works is also incapable of understanding what focal length is, and how it affects photography.
mw, I recommend you take a camera with a telescopic lens (the kind designed for taking pictures of things 100+ feet away), then put it close to the ground and try to take a picture of an ant. After you have performed this simple experiment, try to apply what you have learned to the question of the Hubble Telescope and earth, and tell me if you have arrived at any new conclusions.
I'll be waiting to hear back.
-
The other good question, which is worth repeating, is why doesn't NASA turn around the Hubble Telescope and take a picture of earth?
It's supposedly been "out there" for twenty years or so, and yet they can't be bothered to take a legitimate picture of earth, showing it to be round?
This tells me one of two things:
1. Earth is NOT round.
or,
2. There is no Hubble Telescope "out there."
Actually, both 1. and 2, could be true - since I already know 1. is TRUE.
And it comes as no surprise to anyone that the same person who is incapable of understanding how perspective works is also incapable of understanding what focal length is, and how it affects photography.
mw, I recommend you take a camera with a telescopic lens (the kind designed for taking pictures of things 100+ feet away), then put it close to the ground and try to take a picture of an ant. After you have performed this simple experiment, try to apply what you have learned to the question of the Hubble Telescope and earth, and tell me if you have arrived at any new conclusions.
I'll be waiting to hear back.
I fully understand this argument, and would expect that the Hubble is at a great enough distance to take a photo of earth. Exactly how far away is it, again, that you *think* you need to be to *start* to see some curvature??
-
BTW, here's Hubble's picture of Pluto:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/06/image/b/
LOL
Seems legit........
:roll-laugh1:
-
I fully understand this argument, and would expect that the Hubble is at a great enough distance to take a photo of earth. Exactly how far away is it, again, that you *think* you need to be to *start* to see some curvature??
It's not about seeing or not seeing curvature. It's that, not only is the telescope pointed in the opposite direction (for obvious reasons), it's calibrated to view objects thousands or millions of times further away from itself than the earth is. Even the distance from the telescope to the moon is ~1000x the distance to earth.
There is the additional problem that it orbits the earth at very high speeds, so you would need equally small shutter speeds to get anything other than a blur if you were to point it at the earth. It just so happens that photographing distant stars requires the opposite. Very slow shutter speeds, so again, it's not very useful here.
You don't use a hammer to drive in screws, and you don't use a deep space telescope to take pictures of the earth.
-
I fully understand this argument, and would expect that the Hubble is at a great enough distance to take a photo of earth.
According to this website, it is not possible for Hubble to take a picture of earth:
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=78&cat=topten
-
BTW, here's Hubble's picture of Pluto:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/06/image/b/
LOL
Seems legit........
:roll-laugh1:
Pluto looks exactly like I thought because I'm an expert since I've seen photos before...which are entirely different from each other...um, but, still makes sense because NASA would never do anything to deceive, right? Um, but, one Pluto photo does have a cartoon Pluto on it and this Pluto is a golden orb. Um, but, that sort of makes sense because of the space-time continuum vacuum curriculum velum circuм-spectrum auxilium bathrum differences. At least, that's how someone's brother's cousin's friend explained it to me. Oh, wait! Since it is an orb in both pictures, both must really be Pluto! Yea, that's it! Ok, I BELIEVE!
-
I fully understand this argument, and would expect that the Hubble is at a great enough distance to take a photo of earth. Exactly how far away is it, again, that you *think* you need to be to *start* to see some curvature??
It's not about seeing or not seeing curvature. It's that, not only is the telescope pointed in the opposite direction (for obvious reasons), it's calibrated to view objects thousands or millions of times further away from itself than the earth is. Even the distance from the telescope to the moon is ~1000x the distance to earth.
There is the additional problem that it orbits the earth at very high speeds, so you would need equally small shutter speeds to get anything other than a blur if you were to point it at the earth. It just so happens that photographing distant stars requires the opposite. Very slow shutter speeds, so again, it's not very useful here.
You don't use a hammer to drive in screws, and you don't use a deep space telescope to take pictures of the earth.
No problem. Where's the pictures of the entire earth?
-
I fully understand this argument, and would expect that the Hubble is at a great enough distance to take a photo of earth.
According to this website, it is not possible for Hubble to take a picture of earth:
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=78&cat=topten
Strangely convenient, smoke and mirrors attempt by NASA to dissuade people from seeing the man behind the curtain. The Wizards of Oz strike again.
-
A deep space telescope can't take good pictures of earth, which is a couple hundred miles away, therefore NASA is lying... the fact that you consider this a reasonable argument is a fairly good summary of this thread.
-
A deep space telescope can't take good pictures of earth, which is a couple hundred miles away, therefore NASA is lying... the fact that you consider this a reasonable argument is a fairly good summary of this thread.
NASA can't take a picture of earth? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. They can take pictures of Pluto, the sun, the moon, every planet in between (so they claim) they can take pictures of the clouds, the stars and they can take pictures of buildings and buses, the wall of China, people, even bugs and crawlies, from space, but sorry folks, they just can't take a picture of earth. That will NEVER fly, especially when the biggest question of all has to do with the veracity of what they say about other things like: going to the moon, the earth moving, satellites, etc. These people LIE like dogs and think nothing of doing it. <---------This, is a reasonable argument.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-satellite-camera-provides-epic-view-of-earth
Can they take a pic of the entire earth? Or can't they? Which is it? NASA lies pile up one after another.
-
I genuinely can't tell if you are braindead or trolling. If you are indeed trolling, well played. :cheers:
-
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-satellite-camera-provides-epic-view-of-earth
Can they take a pic of the entire earth? Or can't they? Which is it? NASA lies pile up one after another.
You know what's interesting about that photo? It says it was taken from one million miles away.
Yet, that photo is incredibly detailed and large, whereas the photos of earth from only a distance of 240,000 miles away the earth is tiny and not very detailed.
Just a small indiscrepancy.
-
The only criterion for 'Church teaching' is if ALL the Fathers agree on a Scriptural interpretation.
For example, 99% of all the Fathers interpreted the genesis 'day' as a normal day. But along came St Augustine and said it was all created at once.
.....
A sore point in exegesis is the length of the Genesis day - 'yom'.
St Hildegard, D.E., relates her vision of this day as being about the length of a month... That is, one cycle of a creation day and night then corresponds to the time spanned by 30 modern days now.
But is St. Hildegard, Doctor of the Church, now regarded as a Church Father? [Indeed, who determines Fatherhood? ]
If so, there's a conflict between the Fathers, St Augustine and St Hildegard re the duration of yom... Perhaps we are just not intended to know the relation between the Genesis and modern day??
She also says that the firmament did not start rotating until the fall of Adam and Eve...a post creation event..... and it will not stop until the End of Time. The cause of day and night alteration after the 4th Day then is not the motion of Sun and Moon, but the same cause as on the first 4 days - so it would seem.
AMDG
-
The only criterion for 'Church teaching' is if ALL the Fathers agree on a Scriptural interpretation.
For example, 99% of all the Fathers interpreted the genesis 'day' as a normal day. But along came St Augustine and said it was all created at once.
.....
A sore point in exegesis is the length of the Genesis day - 'yom'.
St Hildegard, D.E., relates her vision of this day as being about the length of a month... That is, one cycle of a creation day and night then corresponds to the time spanned by 30 modern days now.
But is St. Hildegard, Doctor of the Church, now regarded as a Church Father? [Indeed, who determines Fatherhood? ]
If so, there's a conflict between the Fathers, St Augustine and St Hildegard re the duration of yom... Perhaps we are just not intended to know the relation between the Genesis and modern day??
She also says that the firmament did not start rotating until the fall of Adam and Eve...a post creation event..... and it will not stop until the End of Time. The cause of day and night alteration after the 4th Day then is not the motion of Sun and Moon, but the same cause as on the first 4 days - so it would seem.
AMDG
Interesting. I'd like to look further into Hildegard. Do you have a link? Enoch doesn't agree with her because he says that one morning and one night constitutes one day.
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, The Evening and The Morning, and this was indeed the first day. But Moses said it was one day; the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off its exposition till that time. After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts, and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews. On the third day he appointed the dry land to appear, with the sea itself round about it; and on the very same day he made the plants and the seeds to spring out of the earth. On the fourth day he adorned the heaven with the sun, the moon, and the other stars, and appointed them their motions and courses, that the vicissitudes of the seasons might be clearly signified. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t49-enoch-s-domed-world and also: http://testingtheglobe.com/3dmodel.html
Still, Enoch doesn't disagree with what you said Hildegard wrote about movement of the heavenly bodies because that all happened on the 4th day and although the angels had already fallen, Adam and Eve had not yet arrived on the scene. Neat stuff to think about.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-satellite-camera-provides-epic-view-of-earth
Can they take a pic of the entire earth? Or can't they? Which is it? NASA lies pile up one after another.
You know what's interesting about that photo? It says it was taken from one million miles away.
Yet, that photo is incredibly detailed and large, whereas the photos of earth from only a distance of 240,000 miles away the earth is tiny and not very detailed.
Just a small indiscrepancy.
A MILLION miles away. A QUARTER MILLION miles away. Surprisingly, for detail, the more distant camera works better than the closer camera. Both are remotely controlled and transmit very impressive distances. Amazing, since I struggle with bars on my phone. The rest of us plebeians must get the Wal Mart satellite. NASA's cameras contradict each other with regard to the size and placement of the continents, detail, color, as well as earth size. Most importantly, why does NASA claim they cannot get a picture of earth when clearly [they say] they got these two?
I don't know why folks blame Denmark, but something around here definitely reeks.
-
A sore point in exegesis is the length of the Genesis day - 'yom'.
St Hildegard, D.E., relates her vision of this day as being about the length of a month... That is, one cycle of a creation day and night then corresponds to the time spanned by 30 modern days now.
But is St. Hildegard, Doctor of the Church, now regarded as a Church Father? [Indeed, who determines Fatherhood? ]
If so, there's a conflict between the Fathers, St Augustine and St Hildegard re the duration of yom... Perhaps we are just not intended to know the relation between the Genesis and modern day??
She also says that the firmament did not start rotating until the fall of Adam and Eve...a post creation event..... and it will not stop until the End of Time. The cause of day and night alteration after the 4th Day then is not the motion of Sun and Moon, but the same cause as on the first 4 days - so it would seem.
AMDG
Interesting. I'd like to look further into Hildegard. Do you have a link? Enoch doesn't agree with her because he says that one morning and one night constitutes one day.
..........
Still, Enoch doesn't disagree with what you said Hildegard wrote about movement of the heavenly bodies because that all happened on the 4th day and although the angels had already fallen, Adam and Eve had not yet arrived on the scene. Neat stuff to think about.
1- Edited version of Scivias on Google books:
https://books.google.com/books?id=7SVDoDhCV3oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hildegard+of+bingen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip2Nu-1vbPAhUf0IMKHV_nCoQQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=hildegard%20of%20bingen&f=false
link to all books:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=books+by+Hildegard+of+Bingen
2- The Book of Enoch is not canonical....'nuf said.
AMDG
-
hmmm
-
The fact that you don't understand perspective is already well docuмented in this thread. We don't need more evidence of it.
-
The fact that you don't understand perspective is already well docuмented in this thread. We don't need more evidence of it.
Exactly. If I knew how to post pictures I could show enormous moons and tiny moons all taken from earth.
There is a new book out by an astronout who described the curvature of the earth. It is preposterous to claim all who have gone into orbit and on to the moon are making it up. Do you think the Russians would allow America to claim the first men on the moon if it were not true? Imagine the money that a whistleblower could make if he exposed all as a conspiracy. How come not one has broken rank?
Again I say that the flat-earth theory relies on a 10,000 person conspiracy theory, which is simply not believable.
-
The space conspiracy is only going on 50 years. Considering almost all the astronauts were Masons it is not incredible. And as a matter of fact many were killed off over the years.
The conspiracy is the biggest in history, with a big motivation; make Catholics lose their faith. On a natural level it puts people at the mercy of the NWO when the believe its lies.
The fact that it is the biggest conspiracy means that we should take time to study it. Which you are doing a little of, but most don't.
Most Masons don't realise how evil masonry is and most Jews probably don't realise how perverse Judaism is. Why should it be a surprise therefore that people have been tricked into this? The world we live in is a huge system of lies that runs almost "automatically" if you will. The bigger the lie the more they will try to cover it up. Just look at all the people who have been murdered at the hands of the clintons and the obamas. http://nachumlist.com/ And that is just for one or two presidents.
The evidence is there for you to see. There is no curvature on the earth.
"Quid habet aures audiendi audiat"
-Let he who has ears to hear, listen
-
Well there has been crises in the Church before you know. The arian heresy took a lot longer than 50 years to go away.
The round earth error has been 500 years going on.
I see your point though.
Then again you are not even geocentric, so you really shouldn't be speaking about this.
-
Time for a little flat earth music...
To the tune of 'Oh Christmas Tree'
Oh curvature, oh curvature, however lacking existence.
You never show up anywhere
You can't be seen, you are not there
Oh curvature, oh curvature
Global earth has no defense.
Oh curvature, oh curvature, we'd like to see your evidence.
You don't appear, you never show
You don't exist, and now we know
Oh curvature, oh curvature,
Spherical earth misrepresents.
Oh curvature, oh curvature, the flat earth plane is so immense!
The sun does rise as scripture claims
Now we're done with ball earth games
Oh curvature, oh curvature,
Tell the truth at great expense.
-
Well there has been crises in the Church before you know. The arian heresy took a lot longer than 50 years to go away.
The round earth error has been 500 years going on.
I see your point though.
Then again you are not even geocentric, so you really shouldn't be speaking about this.
If that is directed towards me let me respond.
He said that this is the biggest conspiracy ever and I beg to differ. Modernists slowly infiltrated the Church for "a long time" with intent to conspire against the Church to destroy it from within (as if that could happen). It culminated with Vatican II and now a false "church" exists purporting to be the Catholic Church.
No body goes to hell because they don't believe the Earth is flat but they do if they don't become Catholic. I don't necessarily disagree with FE (I don't know enough yet but know enough to question all the "scientists" teach now days) but it is hardly the biggest conspiracy in history.
If I can't say what I said on this thread, neither can he say what he said.
This is certainly one of the biggest, if not THE biggest conspiracy, ever. God revealed to man what he needed to know about the earth in scripture. By way of false science the Devil has recreated the world in his own image for a parallel physical reality to back his new religion and prove God's religion false. Heliocentrism is the basis for relativism, modernism, and downright lies. There is no truth in it at all. Not even on a scientific level. Consider the Devil's substitutions seen everywhere: There is the true mass, and a substitute. There are priests and there are substitutes. There is the True Faith and there are substitutes, etc. This particular substitute is the physical, scientific basis for the new religion and the necessary bulwark for a religion that worships the Beast. We're talking Gnosticism, Big Bangism, millions year old earth, Evolution, global warming, worship of self, worship of creation and all related indoctrination of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Its all based on heliocentrism. Who can deny that the science of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is heliocentrism? All the powers that be accept it, push it, cover for it, lie about it, and it just so happens the whole debacle dates back to Galileo, an affair that turned out to be the thorn in every Catholic's side because the Church insisted the earth was stationary and the sun moved. So the Church was wrong? Scripture was wrong? Rather than back the Church, what did people do? They dismissed the Church and chose "science" and made every excuse possible since then. Catholics actually deny that the Church spoke infallibly. Another argument is that the Church had no business speaking out on the subject because She didn't have the authority. As far as the Devil is concerned Geocentrism/flat earth had to be discarded because all creation shows the Hand of God. So all his minions worked tirelessly for centuries, lying, indoctrinating, falsifying, berating or rewarding according to how one accepted or denied the paradigm. Satan's mouthpiece NASA continues to do it in our time while their high priests rake in billions telling people the earth is round, that water sticks to the outside of a ball as it spins, whirls, barrels and flies 4 different directions at break neck speeds! And we believe this stuff? People have lost their minds! It has become patently obvious why Heliocentrism was condemned by the Church. It is an all encompassing false science of the father of lies.
-
Time for a little flat earth music...
To the tune of 'Oh Christmas Tree'
Oh curvature, oh curvature, however lacking existence.
You never show up anywhere
You can't be seen, you are not there
Oh curvature, oh curvature
Global earth has no defense.
Oh curvature, oh curvature, we'd like to see your evidence.
You don't appear, you never show
You don't exist, and now we know
Oh curvature, oh curvature,
Spherical earth misrepresents.
Oh curvature, oh curvature, the flat earth plane is so immense!
The sun does rise as scripture claims
Now we're done with ball earth games
Oh curvature, oh curvature,
Tell the truth at great expense.
BRAVO!!
:rahrah:
-
I don't think that Scripture is so explicit with GC, at least not physically.
Scripture is quite explicit about GC, in numerous places, and it is even explicit about FE.
-
This is certainly one of the biggest, if not THE biggest conspiracy, ever. God revealed to man what he needed to know about the earth in scripture. By way of false science the Devil has recreated the world in his own image for a parallel physical reality to back his new religion and prove God's religion false. Heliocentrism is the basis for relativism, modernism, and downright lies. There is no truth in it at all. Not even on a scientific level. Consider the Devil's substitutions seen everywhere: There is the true mass, and a substitute. There are priests and there are substitutes. There is the True Faith and there are substitutes, etc. This particular substitute is the physical, scientific basis for the new religion and the necessary bulwark for a religion that worships the Beast. We're talking Gnosticism, Big Bangism, millions year old earth, Evolution, global warming, worship of self, worship of creation and all related indoctrination of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Its all based on heliocentrism. Who can deny that the science of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is heliocentrism? All the powers that be accept it, push it, cover for it, lie about it, and it just so happens the whole debacle dates back to Galileo, an affair that turned out to be the thorn in every Catholic's side because the Church insisted the earth was stationary and the sun moved. So the Church was wrong? Scripture was wrong? Rather than back the Church, what did people do? They dismissed the Church and chose "science" and made every excuse possible since then. Catholics actually deny that the Church spoke infallibly. Another argument is that the Church had no business speaking out on the subject because She didn't have the authority. As far as the Devil is concerned Geocentrism/flat earth had to be discarded because all creation shows the Hand of God. So all his minions worked tirelessly for centuries, lying, indoctrinating, falsifying, berating or rewarding according to how one accepted or denied the paradigm. Satan's mouthpiece NASA continues to do it in our time while their high priests rake in billions telling people the earth is round, that water sticks to the outside of a ball as it spins, whirls, barrels and flies 4 different directions at break neck speeds! And we believe this stuff? People have lost their minds! It has become patently obvious why Heliocentrism was condemned by the Church. It is an all encompassing false science of the father of lies.
Where is the evidence that this one thing, HC, led to all of these evils?
We're talking Gnosticism, Big Bangism, millions year old earth, Evolution, global warming, worship of self, worship of creation and all related indoctrination of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr
I can see that you are very emotional about this but I don't see how HC led to all that.
The Earth is where everything happened and is very much the center and focal point of the Universe religiously, spiritually, and maybe physically; I don't see how if someone thought that is wasn't physically the center, they would be led to all of that. If someone were so swayed to the things you said above, by the fact that the Earth wasn't physically the center, then what kind of faith did they have to begin with? How the Lord saw fit to make creation is His prerogative. I don't believe evolution because Scripture explicitly says that it was otherwise. I don't think that Scripture is so explicit with GC, at least not physically.
I wouldn't call it emotional, passionate maybe. Let me see if I can draw out more, because the connections are there, but perhaps not entirely clear. I hope I don't make it worse, this is hard to put into words. It is pretty huge after all, and it boggles the mind that such deception might even possible. Remember that scripture predicted in Matthew 24: 24: "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect", meaning, those who would finally be saved, could also be deceived in a way that ultimately would not cost them their souls (because they are the elect), but that they would fall for lies too, at least at first, or perhaps, only in part. That means that the rest of the world would adopt false beliefs of every kind. St. Nilus warns us as well, "And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! -- he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases." What could St. Nilus possibly be talking about? Can we pretend that a scientific theory replacement never occurred back in 1633 when "the Church" abandoned geocentrism in favor of heliocentrism? Not the Church Herself because She cannot err, but the human element of the Church somehow walked out of the Galileo Affair with a new doctrine, The Pythagorean Doctrine, whose science is heliocentrism. If you don't know about the Pythagorean Doctrine aka the Copernican Doctrine aka heliocentrism, know that they are all basically the same thing, or aspects of the same doctrine. Let me note here, we're talking 'doctrines' and indoctrination. And revolution. They call it the Copernican Revolution for a reason.
Catholics through the centuries probably didn't pay much attention to the Galileo Affair and later they just didn't think that it mattered. Since everyone eventually believed the new doctrine, they dropped the Church's teaching like a hot rock because they didn't want to look stupid. Consider the New Mass and Vatican II. It wasn't the Church that apostatized, but most of the human element did. And they were mostly happy to do so. Sure, they thought they needed to obey but that was because they didn't bother to check. The slippery slope begins. People no longer really care or know their faith now. They don't know scripture warned about an apostasy let alone that it might apply to them, because scripture was never an absolute, or trustworthy in most people's minds because it isn't to be taken literally. (thanks Galileo) But it must be taken literally. Catholics lost what they had because they didn't love or trust the Church enough to consider Her Tradition a treasure.
Before I continue, if these comparisons and accusations against heliocentrism are true, the level of deception in modern times is nearly complete. Heliocentrism replaced geocentrism because the agents of Satan after the Galileo Affair went to work explaining away what the Church said, saying that proof existed contrary to what She taught, that scripture wasn't to be taken literally, that the scientists know better now, etc. Today you hear from Catholics, "The Church wasn't saying Galileo was wrong, She didn't speak infallibly, She retracted what She said, and so many other ridiculous things, but they always finish with, "Who cares, it doesn't matter anyway!"
Perhaps I've only repeated myself here, but the key to understanding the scope of this problem is knowing the history of the heliocentric heresy in relation to the Church. The Copernican Doctrine had morphed directly from the Pythagorean Doctrine preceding it. And the Church fought that Pythagorean Doctrine for centuries attempting to snuff it out at the Galileo trial with, go figure, two related infallible statements. These infallible Catholic statements completely destroy the heresy of heliocentric doctrine.
I. The sun is the center of the world and completely immovable by local motion.
II. The earth is not the center of the world, not immovable, but moves according to the
whole of itself, and also with a diurnal motion.
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;
Now let it be said here, that geocentrism necessarily includes flat earth. The two go hand in hand with scripture. Not only that, all ancient civilizations believed earth was flat and stationary. And simple true science proves it. So, despite what modern geocentrics are saying, either maliciously, or ignorantly, they are wrong about earth being a ball hanging in space.
You asked how adopting heliocentrism could lead to loss of Faith or salvation. In some ways, I already have. The defacto results are proof in and of themselves. The world believes the science of heliocentrism and the world does not believe in God. But lets show the relationship here. Heliocentrism is a paradigm that turns creation upside down and inside out physically. The HC and GC models are practical opposites. One is true, solid, measurably honest. The other is chaotic, deceptive, ungodly. Lets see why: If earth came about from a Big Bang, God doesn't necessarily exist. Translation: God doesn't exist. In heliocentrism, earth is necessarily millions of years old, which is the key to evolution. Belief in evolution is the basis of atheism (and vise versa). No 6-10 thousand year old earth, no insta-creation by a loving God, we all go waaay back, even before God, started small and stupid, and we have finally arrived! This concept alone puts God so far distant that He doesn't count anymore. And on the heliocentric model of the cosmos, God is no longer above us a few thousand miles, but beyond the emptiness of infinite space! By that notion, we've been made orphans. Round earth is, get this, a foundation for relativity. Wow, that blows my mind. Talk about contradiction. Relativity is ultimately, dishonesty and deception. Relativity is the basis for modernism. Moving earth destroys the concept of a foundation. When scripture says the church is one foundation, and the very foundation on which the church sits, actually moves, that's not truly a foundation, but the Church becomes at some level, a deception. Heliocentrism made Vatican II ambiguity possible because the science of creation (Big Bang, moving round earth) embodies ambiguity, in its relativity. You gotta reread that and think about it.
Directions are screwed on the heliocentric ball earth, so the very basis for the foundations of truth are missing in a physical way. There are no absolutes, horizon doesn't mean horizontal, it is the beginning of the curve downward (no pun). Like I've said before, the idea of up isn't up (actually), up means out, towards space because up is relative depending on 'where you are' on the globe. I hear people say, "I'm not where you're at." This is true in every way. People cannot think anymore. They belong to the father of lies and their minds are jello. In the heliocentric world Christ couldn't have risen, because from Jerusalem on the globe, Jesus went out sideways and technically down for those on the opposite side of the globe. Think this doesn't matter? It is critical to the subconscious mind. And people are critically messed up inside. You cannot reason with them because they live in a fantasy land. Their world is shifting, contradictory, and godless. And so are they. With heliocentrism foundational to modern minds, creation itself is not on the level, scientifically speaking or spiritually speaking.
Apart from all this (sorry if this isn't clear, I'm writing in a hurry and from the heart), just the act of choosing to believe science over Faith is a fundamental rejection of God and the acceptance of the new chaotic foundational science and religion which helped produce a generation of apostate non-believers that willingly sit in its pews. The Globalists win. nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. New World Religion. We really cannot allow Satanic liars to haul away our reality, our Church, the truth, our Catholic heritage, but that's exactly what we did when we accepted atheistic science over the infallible teachings of the Church. Just try to tell people that Galileo was wrong, or that the earth is flat. They will prove the level of their indoctrination with their responses. The Church was hijacked from the Novus Ordites, but God, in His creation, was hijacked from us all. And there's no question about it, these losses are all our own fault.
Earth is flat and stationary because God is not a liar.
-
Happenby,
You don't have to convince me that the Earth is Flat or the Earth is the Physical center of the Universe. I do appreciate your fervor for it though. I don't agree with what you said HC leads to but I don't want to debate that here.
I don't think you can convince me that GC has been defined by the solemn magisterium. If the acts from 1616, 1633 etc.. are binding why do we have Popes conceding that GC may not be the case. We have a contradiction and the OUM cannot contradict itself. Therefore, we cannot say that this matter is settled. Until a true Pope defines GC solemnly, it cannot be said that one must ABSOLUTELY hold this position.
A favor. Only if you want to, could you please compile a list of all the scriptural quotes that you see that teach GC and FE. This isn't some sort of trap, I am not trying to prove it untrue. I seriously would like to look at all of the quotes you guys have. This would save me the time of searching all the internet. The same goes for others reading this. It's not a demand, just a favor.
Yes, I will get to it. Give me a little time, and an opportunity to add what I may have missed.
-
Happenby,
You don't have to convince me that the Earth is Flat or the Earth is the Physical center of the Universe. I do appreciate your fervor for it though. I don't agree with what you said HC leads to but I don't want to debate that here.
I don't think you can convince me that GC has been defined by the solemn magisterium. If the acts from 1616, 1633 etc.. are binding why do we have Popes conceding that GC may not be the case. We have a contradiction and the OUM cannot contradict itself. Therefore, we cannot say that this matter is settled. Until a true Pope defines GC solemnly, it cannot be said that one must ABSOLUTELY hold this position.
A favor. Only if you want to, could you please compile a list of all the scriptural quotes that you see that teach GC and FE. This isn't some sort of trap, I am not trying to prove it untrue. I seriously would like to look at all of the quotes you guys have. This would save me the time of searching all the internet. The same goes for others reading this. It's not a demand, just a favor.
Yes, I will get to it. Give me a little time, and an opportunity to add what I may have missed.
Great, thank you.
Ok, I just picked these up from the Internet and tried to categorize them. You'll want to cross reference in a Douay or Haydock of course. This is by no means exhaustive. Hopefully not repetitive. May be disorganized. One thing you'll notice is that while scripture may have one or two words that some people think translates to sphere, that is opinion, but also, scripture never gives the impression earth is a sphere in its descriptions. I've seen as many as 70 passages on the sun movement alone. There are several regarding water above the earth. Many talk about the face or surface of earth leaning the reading toward flat. Many are obscure and don't make immediate sense as being flat earth or GC, but upon closer inspection, seen collectively, maybe with assistance of backstory, definitions, or envisioning what is going on, the picture becomes clearer.
Water above the firmament, vault of heaven:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. - Genesis 1:6
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. - Genesis 1:14
Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? - Job 37:18
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalms 19:1
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain. - Psalms 104:2
Amos 9:6 Who builds his upper chambers in the heavens and founds his vault upon the earth; who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the surface of the earth— the Lord is his name.
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. - Isaiah 44:24
I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. - Isaiah 45:12
Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. - Isaiah 48:13
The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. - Zechariah 12:1
Job 22:14 ESV Thick clouds veil him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault of heaven.’
Psalm 19:4 ESV Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun,
The Waters above and below earth:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. - Genesis 1:6
Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. - Psalms 148:4
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. - 2 Peter 3:5
Genesis 7:11 ESV In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Earth Immovable:
Psalm 96:10 ESV Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns! Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.”
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. - 1 Chronicles 16:30
The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. - Psalms 93:1
Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously. - Psalms 96:10
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. - Psalms 104:5
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. - Isaiah 45:18
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. - Psalms 102:25
1 Samuel 2:8 ESV He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.
Proverbs 30:4 ESV Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!
The Flat Earth:
Job 11:9 ESV Its measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea.
And upon Elam will I bring the four winds from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter them toward all those winds; and there shall be no nation whither the outcasts of Elam shall not come. - Jeremiah 49:36
Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land. - Ezekiel 7:2
Daniel 4:10-11 ESV The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. - Isaiah 40:22
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. - Matthew 4:8
And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth. - Acts 10:11
I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me. - Acts 11:5
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. - Revelation 7:1
And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. - Revelation 20:8
Job 37:3 ESV Under the whole heaven he lets it go, and his lightning to the corners of the earth.
Job 38:4 ESV “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
Isaiah 11:12 ESV He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Psalm 22:27 ESV All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you.
Genesis 1:2 ESV The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Deuteronomy 28:64 “And the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.
Genesis 1:20 ESV And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”
Psalm 72:8 ESV May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth!
Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. - Deuteronomy 10:14
The Sun moves, not the earth
Ecclesiastes 1:5 ESV The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down. - Isaiah 38:8
Psalm 19:4-6 ESV Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.
Joshua 10:12 ESV At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
Stars are small, inside the firmament, not worlds
Daniel 8:10 ESV It grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them.
Matthew 24:29 ESV “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Revelation 6:13-16 ESV And the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb,
Warning to man about worshiping creation
Deuteronomy 4:15-19 ESV “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.
The number of verses that teach the earth is a round spinning ball orbiting the sun? 0
-
Happenby,
You don't have to convince me that the Earth is Flat or the Earth is the Physical center of the Universe. I do appreciate your fervor for it though. I don't agree with what you said HC leads to but I don't want to debate that here.
I don't think you can convince me that GC has been defined by the solemn magisterium. If the acts from 1616, 1633 etc.. are binding why do we have Popes conceding that GC may not be the case. We have a contradiction and the OUM cannot contradict itself. Therefore, we cannot say that this matter is settled. Until a true Pope defines GC solemnly, it cannot be said that one must ABSOLUTELY hold this position.
A favor. Only if you want to, could you please compile a list of all the scriptural quotes that you see that teach GC and FE. This isn't some sort of trap, I am not trying to prove it untrue. I seriously would like to look at all of the quotes you guys have. This would save me the time of searching all the internet. The same goes for others reading this. It's not a demand, just a favor.
You asked why do we have Popes conceding the GC may not be the case? May not be GC? I know worse shenanigans. Pope Francis Laudato Si.
-
By the way, the list I just compiled for scripture flat earth quotes is now available on the Traditional Flat Earth Forum here: http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/ along with other lists and references for geocentric flat earth.
-
Happenby,
You don't have to convince me that the Earth is Flat or the Earth is the Physical center of the Universe. I do appreciate your fervor for it though. I don't agree with what you said HC leads to but I don't want to debate that here.
I don't think you can convince me that GC has been defined by the solemn magisterium. If the acts from 1616, 1633 etc.. are binding why do we have Popes conceding that GC may not be the case. We have a contradiction and the OUM cannot contradict itself. Therefore, we cannot say that this matter is settled. Until a true Pope defines GC solemnly, it cannot be said that one must ABSOLUTELY hold this position.
A favor. Only if you want to, could you please compile a list of all the scriptural quotes that you see that teach GC and FE. This isn't some sort of trap, I am not trying to prove it untrue. I seriously would like to look at all of the quotes you guys have. This would save me the time of searching all the internet. The same goes for others reading this. It's not a demand, just a favor.
You asked why do we have Popes conceding the GC may not be the case? May not be GC? I know worse shenanigans. Pope Francis Laudato Si.
First, thank you very much for getting all the quotes together. I thought you had a book or something with them. You could have just told me to do my own online searching LOL. Nevertheless thanks.
Second, As per your Francis quote, this is the distinction I draw. Francis explicitly denies the Faith. My point is that, the Popes who considered GC may not be the case, did so because they felt it was not part of Dogma. Francis and the others clearly know what the CC teaches and obstinately stand in clear opposition to it. Even if the Popes who said or implied that GC may not be true were wrong, it was an error in good faith on their part, because there is no clear definition of it. Just as it is possible that the Popes who deemed that HC was heresy, possibly could have been in error.
Off to read those Passages now.
Thanks again.
No worries, enjoy.
-
http://www.vendeeglobe.org/en/ranking-and-race-data
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3pxzmu_presentation-3d-du-parcours-du-vendee-globe_sport
-
Hardly a proof that the earth is a globe.
Here is one of the first things google pulled up for me.
Some interesting reflections
https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/vendee-global-yacht-race-route-points-to-a-flat-earth/
-
Hardly a proof that the earth is a globe.
Here is one of the first things google pulled up for me.
Some interesting reflections
https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/vendee-global-yacht-race-route-points-to-a-flat-earth/
HAHAHAHA - love it!
Flat earth for the WIN!
A glober undone by his own yacht race - love it!
-
This thread appears to be designed to intentionally associate obviously ignorant memes with a valid movement, for the purpose of defaming the movement.
Moderators?
-
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=1190&#p8)
hmmm
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9983)
The top picture is taken with a wide-angle lens and the bottom with a telephoto lens.
When you use a wide-angle lens with a close foreground the background looks smaller, and when you use a telephoto with a distant foreground the relative larger background looks accurately larger. For example, have a person stand 5 feet away from you with a mountain in the background. A wide-angle lens will show the mountain to be tiny behind him. But move 100 yards away from him and take the same picture with a telephoto and the mountain will look HUGE behind him. This is elementary photography, of which you're evidently ignorant.
HOWEVER, something worth noticing is that the shadow of the moon on the earth in the bottom picture is ridiculous. That is not what the moon's shadow looks like on the earth. It would have to be fake to appear thus, like a desktop icon shadow on a Commodore 64, for example.
.
-
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40036&min=1190&#p8)
hmmm
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=9983)
The top picture is taken with a wide-angle lens and the bottom with a telephoto lens.
When you use a wide-angle lens with a close foreground the background looks smaller, and when you use a telephoto with a distant foreground the relative larger background looks accurately larger. For example, have a person stand 5 feet away from you with a mountain in the background. A wide-angle lens will show the mountain to be tiny behind him. But move 100 yards away from him and take the same picture with a telephoto and the mountain will look HUGE behind him. This is elementary photography, of which you're evidently ignorant.
HOWEVER, something worth noticing is that the shadow of the moon on the earth in the bottom picture is ridiculous. That is not what the moon's shadow looks like on the earth. It would have to be fake to appear thus, like a desktop icon shadow on a Commodore 64, for example.
.
I understand what you're saying, although I am not certain these ideas would apply in photography at such astronomical distances.
Hey, wait - did you just acknowledge NASA fakery? I'll take that victory, however small.
-
this guy is a professional and licensed engineer who believes the earth to be flat.
He has called for a proper geodetic survey of the earths curvature here:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/iu1t0jBBuTI[/youtube]
here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu1t0jBBuTI&feature=youtu.be
-
I wonder, if the earth is flat(which I don't think), then why did St. Catherine Laboure see our Lady holding a globe in her hands? And why is the Infant of Pragur holding a globe?
"On the 27th of November, 1830 ... while making my meditation in profound silence ... I seemed to hear on the right hand side of the sanctuary something like the rustling of a silk dress. Glancing in that direction, I perceived the Blessed Virgin standing near St. Joseph's picture. Her height was medium and Her countenance, indescribably beautiful. She was dressed in a robe the color of the dawn, high-necked, with plain sleeves. Her head was covered with a white veil, which floated over Her shoulders down to her feet. Her feet rested upon a GLOBE, or rather one half of a GLOBE, for that was all that could be seen. Her hands which were on a level with Her waist, held in an easy manner another GLOBE, a figure of the WORLD. Her eyes were raised to Heaven, and Her countenance beamed with light as She offered the GLOBE to Our Lord.
"As I was busy contemplating Her, the Blessed Virgin fixed Her eyes upon me, and a voice said in the depths of my heart: ' This globe which you see represents the whole world, especially France, and each person in particular.'
-
that's a common objection and very understandable for Catholics.
There are two reasons.
1. A sphere is representative of unity and perfection.
2. It represents the hebrew version of the universe.
The earth is a flat disc. but it is surrounded on top by a circular dome and underneath by another one. Thus being spherical. Here is a picture to illustrate
(http://www.aumethodists.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/hebrew_conception_of_the_universe2.jpg)
-
Proverbs 8:26 Douay-Rheims Bible
He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world.
-
this guy is a professional and licensed engineer who believes the earth to be flat.
He has called for a proper geodetic survey of the earths curvature here:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/iu1t0jBBuTI[/youtube]
here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu1t0jBBuTI&feature=youtu.be
Were you trying to do this?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/iu1t0jBBuTI[/youtube]
That one doesn't explain much at all. So watch this one:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/zSdo1lo8T5Q[/youtube]
This guy has no idea what he's suggesting. He couldn't be a real engineer and be so ignorant of the basics.
There is a very basic engineering principle that he's apparently ignorant of, because he never mentions it. It's called tolerance buildup (alt. tolerance stack-up see below). This video is a good example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. He knows what a CNC is, and he can hold a carpenter's level and framing triangle. In fact, he can bump two of them together WHILE he mentions the CNC. So what?
Anyone attempting to do what he suggests in this chalkboard lecture would be wasting their time.
One of the video comments says it pretty well:
The 'Force the Line' experiment has a slew of problems. Refraction isn't one of them, but a total lack of understanding of potential errors in the construction is. Because he is trying to construct a straight line in short segments that cannot be aligned from outside the structure (otherwise it destroys the integrity of the entire experiment), everything hinges on how well he can carry the 'straight line' across the joints. This is something that will add a great deal to the cost and complexity of the project. It seems simple, but you cannot measure them from anything other than the previous piece, because external measurement will necessarily not be 'horizontal' at the starting point, but will be level at the local set-up point. You cannot go back to the previous points and sight along them, because you will have refraction errors because you are close to the ground. So everything hinges on transferring the straightness at each joint. If you go back and look at how good these need to be, the error tolerance is very small. And he has no way to check it independently, because all checks depend upon the Earth model that is used. He's sort of trapped in a circle process here, without any possibility of external independent checks. So his results are necessarily suspect even before he starts construction.
The Rectilinear had exactly the same problems, which is why its existence in mainstream science and geodesy is either non-existent or an embarrassment. It was the wrong experiment, done poorly, and with no way to verify the results. Everything hangs on getting the construction exactly right, and you have no way of knowing you managed it, unless you assume a specific model for the Earth. But as the experiment is supposed to resolve that question, as to what is the shape of the Earth, it CANNOT produce a reliable, checkable and defensible answer.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/C4K_WKnyobA[/youtube]
.
-
This video gives a nice point list of the types of concerns for tolerance stackup in mechanical manufacturing:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ts2aYZD9z40[/youtube]
The structure in the video series above "Force the Line" is very similar to a mechanical manufacturing product, and as such the concerns enumerated in this video are directly applicable in general. I'm referring to the list showing from minute 1 through 5.
The specific application is a setup where the same product will be repetitively produced, such as in an assembly line, but it can be a discrete assembly module independent of a typical lineup of products. The "Force the Line" project is a one-off product that fits this description, but also, it contains thousands of joints the accuracy and consistency of which are absolutely critical for the reliability of the whole project. Therefore, tolerance stackup is of PRIMARY CONCERN.
The fact that it was not mentioned in the videos is proof the author has no idea what he's getting into. Engineers don't embark on a construction project when the very core of their objective and theoretical foundation is chock full of problems they have not addressed.
-
I wonder, if the earth is flat(which I don't think), then why did St. Catherine Laboure see our Lady holding a globe in her hands? And why is the Infant of Prague holding a globe?
These are called globus crucifers, as has been mentioned at least twice previously in this thread.
They represent the totality of God's Creation: the Firmament, the flat plane of the earth, and the barrier that holds waters of the Great Deep.
Notice it is not painted with any continents or oceans like the globe model??
-
Since putting that video up I have discovered that the guy is not flat earth at all. He is only open to the possibility.
Certainly it is a project that he needs help on. Perhaps you, Neil can lend your engineering skills if you have time.
The first response by you doesn't really address much. It seems you are trying to discredit him before he even gets started.
as for the poles remark by somebody else, It can apply to the flat earth. Pole is from the latin Palus, which means stake. From one end to the other.
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/J5iFYlROlos[/youtube]
For anyone who has the time, I just started watching this. Father Pfeiffer argues for the round earth and against the flat earth. I plan on watching the whole thing tonight.
-
Listening to the arguments between Father Pfeiffer and the flat earthers in the video is very amusing to me. I am about 2 hours into it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Finally,
He is trying to get all of tradition behind him.
Say that it supports him, so he can move onto the science(which he knows no-one is interested in) and therefore get people to go back to sleep.
I will quote one very explicit quote from the Fathers of the Church. Lactentius.
Before I do, let me point out that there is NOT ONE SINGLE QUOTE from the Fathers of the Church in favour of the globe earth. St. Augustine was not when you read the quote often cited from him.
Here is Lactentius
Lactentius in the Divine institutes, Chapter 24 :
they thought that the world is round like a ball, and
they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of
the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have
set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to
the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after
the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous
images, which they said were constellations.
....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss
philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake
to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on
false subjects.
taken from http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition
-
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.
-
Sorry guys about the multiple obesessive posts, but I couldnt resist this one.
In Father Pfeiffers conference he pretends that the St. Jerome quote is some spooky inaccessible, lost in time manuscript that we cannot know the context of.
But it is readily available.
St. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
God "[had] established the great mass of the land and had gathered it together above the seas and rivers, so that the heaviest element [earth] hangs over the lighter weight waters by the will of God, who like a king sits above the circle of the earth. There are some who assert that this mass is like a point and globe...What, then, will the land be over ...?"
Original latin here (https://books.google.ie/books?id=J8oIAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA463&lpg=PA463&dq=Ex+quo+nonnulli+quasi+punctum+et+%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%09globum+eam+(molem+terrae)+esse+%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%09contendunt.+Quid+igitur+superbit+terra&source=bl&ots=NKWy2k7lk-&sig=lMlN2WZncxecfX2fJydPrGcXmnM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOhc2bxfbQAhUMBsAKHeykDyEQ6AEIIzAB)
Total intellectual dishonesty by Father Pfeiffer.
To answer the question above.
There are four great proofs listed as stickys at this link: http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs
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....
As for the St. Gregory of Nyssa quote, I am looking into that. It seems that he was talking about the sun going under the flat earth. Yes people thought that! And that the references to globes, as per usual, are mistranslations, which actually refer to circles. I am looking into it...
-
Listening to the arguments between Father Pfeiffer and the flat earthers in the video is very amusing to me. I am about 2 hours into it.
There are several errors made by Fr. Pfeiffer on this topic, in arguing in favor of a ball-earth. Three MAJOR ones that stick out to me right away, anyway.
I'll be back later to write them up when I have a bit of time.
-
I will make this very quick observation:
Fr. Pfeiffer is attempting to say that the idea of a globe earth and the people who believed it and therefore, by extension, heliocentrism, goes back to Aristotle, Aristarchus, and Ptolemy, in ascending order:
Aristotle, b. 384 - d. 322 B.C.
Aristarchus, b. 310 - d. 230 B.C.
Ptolemy, b. 168 - d. 106 B.C.
But, the truth is Fr. Pfeiffer does not go back FAR ENOUGH in time and tell you WHO the source of the pernicious error of globe earth and heliocentrism originates from and WHERE it originates from:
PYTHAGORAS, b. 570 - d. 495 B.C.
PYTHAGORAS is a Kabbalist of the highest order, the modern "Father" of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. He received all of his knowledge through "revelations" in his practice of the darks arts of Kabbalah. In other words, witchcraft. So, Fr. Pfeiffer has effectively rested his ball-earth argument on the doctrines and philosophy of satan's army, and the greatest enemy of the Church - Jєωιѕн Kabbalah.
Please see my related thread "NASA and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ":
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/NASA-and-Fressmasonry
-
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.
-
You can't have two poles on a flat earth.
Deuteronomy:
If thou be driven as far as the poles of heaven, the Lord thy God will fetch thee back from thence,
In Latin:
Si ad cardines caeli fueris dissipatus, inde te retrahet Dominus Deus tuus,
Proverbs:
He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world.
Adhuc terram non fecerat, et flumina, et cardines orbis terrae.
Job:
The clouds are his covert, and he doth not consider our things, and he walketh about the poles of heaven.
Nubes latibulum ejus, nec nostra considerat, et circa cardines caeli perambulat.
I Kings:
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.
Suscitat de pulvere egenum, et de stercore elevat pauperem: ut sedeat cuм principibus, et solium gloriae teneat. Domini enim sunt cardines terrae, et posuit super eos orbem.
The word "poles" does NOT mean the top and bottom of a globe, in the Bible. You are simply parroting a word that modern-day scientism has co-opted for its false ball-earth model.
The Bible , which always is above scientism, is referring to the LITERAL poles that uphold heaven and earth. There is NOTHING holding up a ball-earth in the globe model. The Bible speaks of the cardines (poles) and pillars in multiple places.
pole n. - a long, slender, rounded piece of wood or metal, typically used with one end placed in the ground as a support for something.
Historical: a linear or square rod.
"a tent pole"
There are literal "tent poles" holding up the Firmament of the Heavens on the flat plane of earth.
There are no such tent poles possible on a ball earth.
-
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.
Perhaps you missed their latest version of flat-earthism, which has a dome on top, and another upside-down dome underneath the bottom flat-earthism situation, effectively making earth into a big round knish. Or would that be a knish-under-glass?
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchives.quarrygirl.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fspinach-knish-570x395.jpg&sp=eb222b7657dfd91016cb306ab45ca3ea)
In any event, the opposing domes curiously resemble a "ball," no??
-
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 (http://res.freestockphotos.biz/pictures/17/17849-sun-setting-over-the-ocean-pv.jpg) would not be possible.
-
Arguing with an FEer is like beating your head against a wall…it feels so good when you stop.
-
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 (http://res.freestockphotos.biz/pictures/17/17849-sun-setting-over-the-ocean-pv.jpg) would not be possible.
I saw your post and thought it was well said.
However, since you didn't manage to include the image of the link you posted, I presume to expect you won't mind me inserting it to wit:
(http://res.freestockphotos.biz/pictures/17/17849-sun-setting-over-the-ocean-pv.jpg)
---Curiously, if you click on the link "this picture" above, you see a more clear image, but one that happens to contain a "bleeds" phenomenon where the sun meets the water's horizon. This effect was argued by a flat-earther earlier in this thread to claim that there was, in effect applied here, there was two suns moving through the image depicted.---
Arguing with an FEer is like beating your head against a wall…it feels so good when you stop.
But - but - but - if you "stop" then I won't be able to enjoy your contributions!! :laugh1:
-
As far as the flat earth idea goes, I have tried to understand it and was able to explain some things in the flat earth model, but there is one thing I cannot understand. That is the movement of the sun and sunrise and sunset. The explanations I have seen from flat earthers do not make sense to me and seem to be impossible.
-
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.
Perhaps you missed their latest version of flat-earthism, which has a dome on top, and another upside-down dome underneath the bottom flat-earthism situation, effectively making earth into a big round knish. Or would that be a knish-under-glass?
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchives.quarrygirl.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fspinach-knish-570x395.jpg&sp=eb222b7657dfd91016cb306ab45ca3ea)
In any event, the opposing domes curiously resemble a "ball," no??
God created the flat earth. The flat earth is not new.
-
Arguing with an FEer is like beating your head against a wall…it feels so good when you stop.
Your loss is our gain. :wink:
-
As far as the flat earth idea goes, I have tried to understand it and was able to explain some things in the flat earth model, but there is one thing I cannot understand. That is the movement of the sun and sunrise and sunset. The explanations I have seen from flat earthers do not make sense to me and seem to be impossible.
I agree with your concern re: sun movm't.
But I also take issue with their explanation of weight. There are very simple experiments you can do to support the principle of mass inherent in matter, and to show the falseness of buoyancy as the complete answer for differing weights among material objects.
We live in an age of very sophisticated mechanical systems, and mechanical engineering is a fact of life now. You'll be hard pressed to find a mechanical engineer who says that the reason one item weighs more than another is entirely because of the difference in density between them and the air they displace. But this is to what the flat-earthers reduce their discussion.
-
Yacht race AROUND the world...
http://tracking2016.vendeeglobe.org/hp5ip0/
-
As far as the flat earth idea goes, I have tried to understand it and was able to explain some things in the flat earth model, but there is one thing I cannot understand. That is the movement of the sun and sunrise and sunset. The explanations I have seen from flat earthers do not make sense to me and seem to be impossible.
In my opinion, youtuber p-brane gives the best and easiest to understand explanation of this on the flat earth model.
Watch his video here, and go to the 10:30 mark for a diagram illustration:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/GDaiw-G1VGE[/youtube]
-
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 (http://res.freestockphotos.biz/pictures/17/17849-sun-setting-over-the-ocean-pv.jpg) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
All the constellations move counter-clockwise around which star of the northern hemisphere?
-
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:
(http://i.imgur.com/BYZIwHs.png)
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: :laugh2:
-
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...
:facepalm:
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.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/hiAlEuj.png)
-
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.
-
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?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/hiAlEuj.png)
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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
-
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....
You forgot to add curvature to the horizon in the picture. I might continue to think the earth is flat. :stare:
-
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....
You forgot to add curvature to the horizon in the picture. I might continue to think the earth is flat. :stare:
Yea well, I'm a vertical stick in the horizontal mud, whadda ya want. :laugh1:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/hiAlEuj.png)
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.
And "sight lines" bend at sharp angles because why again? No part of that image makes sense.
-
Also, another translation is pillars. What globe has pillars... or a foundation?
The earth has at least one pillar, in Spain, which is jasper stone in composition. It is exposed for a few feet above ground and has an unknown depth. Some have suggested that it goes all the way through the earth, because every attempt at digging down to find its foundation underground has resulted in discovering that it is still there, going down toward the center of the earth.
-
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?
By all appearances, flat-earthers do not know the answers to these questions.
So they probably don't know the answer to this question, either:
Has it ever been possible to observe from earth the transit of the planet Mercury across the visible disc of the sun in the sky?
-
And "sight lines" bend at sharp angles because why again? No part of that image makes sense.
For the same reason parallel lines converge to a single point.
Read and learn, grasshopper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)
-
Also, another translation is pillars. What globe has pillars... or a foundation?
The earth has at least one pillar, in Spain, which is jasper stone in composition. It is exposed for a few feet above ground and has an unknown depth. Some have suggested that it goes all the way through the earth, because every attempt at digging down to find its foundation underground has resulted in discovering that it is still there, going down toward the center of the earth.
Interesting. I'm not sure we'll ever know if its one of the supporting pillars since we can never unearth it...or any of them. One thing that is certain is that, in the same sense that the church has pillars upon which the roof rests on the foundation, we know that it is likened to Moses' tabernacle, apparently, a concept rooted in scripture that several Fathers considered but never elaborated on until Cosmas did in 550. Seems to me there needs to be at least four pillars, but perhaps there is a much larger number of them in order to support the entire land mass, heaven above the vault as well as the waters.
-
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?
By all appearances, flat-earthers do not know the answers to these questions.
So they probably don't know the answer to this question, either:
Has it ever been possible to observe from earth the transit of the planet Mercury across the visible disc of the sun in the sky?
The North Star, Polaris is the fixed star around which the heavens go and a glaring proof the universe is not Heliocentric, that earth is fixed and the sun moves. That path of the sun crossing the celestial equator is known as the ecliptic. The transit of Mercury, the heavenly body that is a wandering star and not a planet... appears to cross the sun 13 times a century.
-
Also, another translation is pillars. What globe has pillars... or a foundation?
The earth has at least one pillar, in Spain, which is jasper stone in composition. It is exposed for a few feet above ground and has an unknown depth. Some have suggested that it goes all the way through the earth, because every attempt at digging down to find its foundation underground has resulted in discovering that it is still there, going down toward the center of the earth.
Interesting. I'm not sure we'll ever know if its one of the supporting pillars since we can never unearth it...or any of them. One thing that is certain is that, in the same sense that the church has pillars upon which the roof rests on the foundation, we know that it is likened to Moses' tabernacle, apparently, a concept rooted in scripture that several Fathers considered but never elaborated on until Cosmas did in 550. Seems to me there needs to be at least four pillars, but perhaps there is a much larger number of them in order to support the entire land mass, heaven above the vault as well as the waters.
The pillar in Spain supports only a statue of Our Lady of the Pillar, in Santiago de Compostela, where she appeared to St. James in the year A.D. 40, while she was alive, living in Ephesus. It is the first Marian shrine in the world.
-
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?
By all appearances, flat-earthers do not know the answers to these questions.
So they probably don't know the answer to this question, either:
Has it ever been possible to observe from earth the transit of the planet Mercury across the visible disc of the sun in the sky?
The North Star, Polaris is the fixed star around which the heavens go and a glaring proof the universe is not Heliocentric, that earth is fixed and the sun moves. That path of the sun crossing the celestial equator is known as the ecliptic. The transit of Mercury, the heavenly body that is a wandering star and not a planet... appears to cross the sun 13 times a century.
One out of three isn't bad. Polaris isn't really "fixed," because it wobbles in a tiny circle.
There are two other names for Polaris (North Star). Do you know what they are?
The second question is not "that path of the sun," but the time when the sun crosses the celestial equator. That TIME is called the Equinox. There is a Vernal and an Autumnal Equinox each year.
As for the "wandering star" we call Mercury, if it is a star then why does it appear as a tiny black dot on the face of the sun as it transits in between the sun and the earth?
BTW, Venus also transits the same way, but it's a bigger black dot, but black just the same. Are those black stars, in your opinion?
If so, why does Venus show phases like the moon does -- is the moon another black star or what?
So the moon, when it transits across the face of the sun we call that an eclipse of the sun.
Why don't we call it an eclipse of the sun when Venus or Mercury do that?
-
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?
By all appearances, flat-earthers do not know the answers to these questions.
So they probably don't know the answer to this question, either:
Has it ever been possible to observe from earth the transit of the planet Mercury across the visible disc of the sun in the sky?
The North Star, Polaris is the fixed star around which the heavens go and a glaring proof the universe is not Heliocentric, that earth is fixed and the sun moves. That path of the sun crossing the celestial equator is known as the ecliptic. The transit of Mercury, the heavenly body that is a wandering star and not a planet... appears to cross the sun 13 times a century.
One out of three isn't bad. Polaris isn't really "fixed," because it wobbles in a tiny circle.
There are two other names for Polaris (North Star). Do you know what they are?
The second question is not "that path of the sun," but the time when the sun crosses the celestial equator. That TIME is called the Equinox. There is a Vernal and an Autumnal Equinox each year.
As for the "wandering star" we call Mercury, if it is a star then why does it appear as a tiny black dot on the face of the sun as it transits in between the sun and the earth?
BTW, Venus also transits the same way, but it's a bigger black dot, but black just the same. Are those black stars, in your opinion?
If so, why does Venus show phases like the moon does -- is the moon another black star or what?
So the moon, when it transits across the face of the sun we call that an eclipse of the sun.
Why don't we call it an eclipse of the sun when Venus or Mercury do that?
Polaris is fixed to the point that it can be viewed literally for years on end, through a simple 1/2" pvc pipe, and never does it even approach the pipe's inner edge. That's certainly not much movement considering NASA claims it is bazillions of miles away where even the tiniest of movements would instantly show. Comparatively, the sun moves completely out of the same pvc viewer in 1 1/2 minutes.
As far as Mercury is concerned, I just know its hard to see being so close to the sun. I have a growing collection of photos and videos of my own since I recently bought a Nikon P900. We climb from where we are at 2200 ft up to 2500 ft so we can shoot far out of the range of other hills and trees. Venus is a star for sure, I've seen it (not black yet) and have my own clear shots of it... as well as Mars. Saturn is my next goal; its rings are the same stuff as the star itself, not a terra firma planet as we are told, and it all flickers like an electric pulse, even the rings. So far Sirius is my favorite, so wild and colorful. I can only hazard a guess as to the Mercury black dot thing: that the camera lens and bright objects such as the sun can black out the lesser light which is just enough different from the sun so that it creates that effect. I have not seen that myself, but from what I have seen, taking shots of heavenly things, there is no end to the kind of anomalies you get just for trying.
As far as phases of Venus, the only thing I can verify is that it is the Morning Star in the east and it jets around to close out the day in the West where it can be easily photographed. The morning has its own challenges so its hard to get at that time.
A star cannot eclipse the sun in any observably interesting way as they are too small. The moon on the other hand is the same size as the sun and creates quite the show during an eclipse.
The picture provided is an unknown star I took the first day I got my camera.
Another interesting fact I've discovered since taking many shots of the moon is that it rotates 180 degrees, like a wheel, from moon rise, to moon set, every day and 360 degrees every 24 hours. You can observe this yourself once the moon looks like a smile (or when full using the features to determine). Watch the extreme points of the lit smile rotate counterclockwise almost 180 degrees to the opposite side by morning. Amazing!
:rahrah: Wheels in the sky keep on turning--Journey
-
Also, another translation is pillars. What globe has pillars... or a foundation?
The earth has at least one pillar, in Spain, which is jasper stone in composition. It is exposed for a few feet above ground and has an unknown depth. Some have suggested that it goes all the way through the earth, because every attempt at digging down to find its foundation underground has resulted in discovering that it is still there, going down toward the center of the earth.
Interesting. I'm not sure we'll ever know if its one of the supporting pillars since we can never unearth it...or any of them. One thing that is certain is that, in the same sense that the church has pillars upon which the roof rests on the foundation, we know that it is likened to Moses' tabernacle, apparently, a concept rooted in scripture that several Fathers considered but never elaborated on until Cosmas did in 550. Seems to me there needs to be at least four pillars, but perhaps there is a much larger number of them in order to support the entire land mass, heaven above the vault as well as the waters.
The pillar in Spain supports only a statue of Our Lady of the Pillar, in Santiago de Compostela, where she appeared to St. James in the year A.D. 40, while she was alive, living in Ephesus. It is the first Marian shrine in the world.
Very cool. I always wonder at the significance of such things. If I had my druthers, I think I'd pick a visit to Our Lady of Good Success in Ecuador. But the one you mention makes it harder to decide.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpU6lStM_pk
Sorry, my bad...I had said the moon turns counterclockwise in one of my last posts. As you can see, it is obviously wheeling along clockwise as this video shows.
-
BTW, Venus also transits the same way, but it's a bigger black dot, but black just the same. Are those black stars, in your opinion?
If so, why does Venus show phases like the moon does -- is the moon another black star or what?
So the moon, when it transits across the face of the sun we call that an eclipse of the sun.
Why don't we call it an eclipse of the sun when Venus or Mercury do that?
I think it is important to distinguish terminology again.
In the flat earth model, according to the Bible, all "stars" are lights - as in, they produce a point of light in the sky. Some stars are known as "wandering" because they take an irregular path within the Firmament. Those wandering "points of light" appear to be physical bodies, made of rock, with the moon being the largest and nearest example of this. We know this to be true because you can see it with your own eyes. And you can see Venus with a telescope. Sometimes, at certain times of year, you can even see the phases of Venus with the naked eye.
Therefore, if the bodies of Venus or Mercury are rocks that are smaller and further away than the moon, they would also show phases of the reflection of the sun's light and they would be able to be "seen" when they "transit" or, pass in front of, the sun on the flat earth model.
-
And "sight lines" bend at sharp angles because why again? No part of that image makes sense.
For the same reason parallel lines converge to a single point.
Read and learn, grasshopper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)
I hate to break it to you, but there are no bent lines in that article.
-
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?
By all appearances, flat-earthers do not know the answers to these questions.
So they probably don't know the answer to this question, either:
Has it ever been possible to observe from earth the transit of the planet Mercury across the visible disc of the sun in the sky?
The North Star, Polaris is the fixed star around which the heavens go and a glaring proof the universe is not Heliocentric, that earth is fixed and the sun moves. That path of the sun crossing the celestial equator is known as the ecliptic. The transit of Mercury, the heavenly body that is a wandering star and not a planet... appears to cross the sun 13 times a century.
One out of three isn't bad. Polaris isn't really "fixed," because it wobbles in a tiny circle.
There are two other names for Polaris (North Star). Do you know what they are?
The second question is not "that path of the sun," but the time when the sun crosses the celestial equator. That TIME is called the Equinox. There is a Vernal and an Autumnal Equinox each year.
As for the "wandering star" we call Mercury, if it is a star then why does it appear as a tiny black dot on the face of the sun as it transits in between the sun and the earth?
BTW, Venus also transits the same way, but it's a bigger black dot, but black just the same. Are those black stars, in your opinion?
If so, why does Venus show phases like the moon does -- is the moon another black star or what?
So the moon, when it transits across the face of the sun we call that an eclipse of the sun.
Why don't we call it an eclipse of the sun when Venus or Mercury do that?
Polaris is fixed to the point that it can be viewed literally for years on end, through a simple 1/2" pvc pipe, and never does it even approach the pipe's inner edge. That's certainly not much movement considering NASA claims it is bazillions of miles away where even the tiniest of movements would instantly show. Comparatively, the sun moves completely out of the same pvc viewer in 1 1/2 minutes.
You have a real 1/2" PVC viewer? WOW.
That must have set you back a bundle.
What did you buy it with, Blue Chip stamps?
As far as Mercury is concerned, I just know its hard to see being so close to the sun. I have a growing collection of photos and videos of my own since I recently bought a Nikon P900. We climb from where we are at 2200 ft up to 2500 ft so we can shoot far out of the range of other hills and trees.
What makes you think Mercury is close to the sun?
If it's a star (like Venus is, you say below) it could be millions of miles away.
But if you look through the viewfinder of a camera at the sun you can burn your retina and go blind. So be sure to follow special procedures, projecting the image onto a white piece of hardboard where you can see the sun, with Mercury (as a black dot) passing in front of it.
Venus is a star for sure, I've seen it (not black yet) and have my own clear shots of it... as well as Mars.
Venus appears to be a black dot when it passes in front of the sun, which happens very rarely.
Saturn is my next goal; its rings are the same stuff as the star itself, not a terra firma planet as we are told, and it all flickers like an electric pulse, even the rings.
The flickering you see there is due to the movement of the earth's atmosphere, not Saturn or its rings. When viewed from places where a view through static air is possible, you don't get so much flickering. Images from certain remote telescopes show no distortion at all.
So far Sirius is my favorite, so wild and colorful. I can only hazard a guess as to the Mercury black dot thing: that the camera lens and bright objects such as the sun can black out the lesser light which is just enough different from the sun so that it creates that effect. I have not seen that myself, but from what I have seen, taking shots of heavenly things, there is no end to the kind of anomalies you get just for trying.
As far as phases of Venus, the only thing I can verify is that it is the Morning Star in the east and it jets around to close out the day in the West where it can be easily photographed. The morning has its own challenges so its hard to get at that time.
A star cannot eclipse the sun in any observably interesting way as they are too small. The moon on the other hand is the same size as the sun and creates quite the show during an eclipse.
The moon is many, many times smaller than the sun, which can be easily shown using simple surveying equipment from earth's surface. It only appears to be the same size during some solar eclipses, but in others it appears to be smaller when the moon is further from the earth at the time and its darkest shadow does not completely reach earth's surface. This is not difficult to understand.
A star cannot eclipse the sun because the stars are all too far away, which is why they appear smaller than the sun. Some are smaller, true, but most of them are larger than our sun. If one of the larger stars were to pass between earth and the sun the latter would be eclipsed, but by a more intense light, which could wipe out all life on the daylight side of the planet, but would certainly disturb the gravitational forces presently at balance here.
The picture provided is an unknown star I took the first day I got my camera.
Another interesting fact I've discovered since taking many shots of the moon is that it rotates 180 degrees, like a wheel, from moon rise, to moon set, every day and 360 degrees every 24 hours. You can observe this yourself once the moon looks like a smile (or when full using the features to determine). Watch the extreme points of the lit smile rotate counterclockwise almost 180 degrees to the opposite side by morning. Amazing!
If you have photos of the back side of the moon you ought to publish them.
-
If you have photos of the back side of the moon you ought to publish them.
Neil - she doesn't mean the BACK side of the moon. The moon does NOT rotate on its axis.
What it DOES do is a cartwheel across the sky each night as it traverses from east to west. In other words, the facial features, and the shadow, all turn in a clockwise direction upon its face. Like a wheel turning.
Guess what? The planets, like Jupiter, for example, do it too.
It is due to the law of perspective. (click link below, embed not working)
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/tpU6lStM_pk&t[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpU6lStM_pk&t
-
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?
By all appearances, flat-earthers do not know the answers to these questions.
So they probably don't know the answer to this question, either:
Has it ever been possible to observe from earth the transit of the planet Mercury across the visible disc of the sun in the sky?
The North Star, Polaris is the fixed star around which the heavens go and a glaring proof the universe is not Heliocentric, that earth is fixed and the sun moves. That path of the sun crossing the celestial equator is known as the ecliptic. The transit of Mercury, the heavenly body that is a wandering star and not a planet... appears to cross the sun 13 times a century.
Polaris isn't really "fixed," because it wobbles in a tiny circle.
There are two other names for Polaris (North Star). Do you know what they are?
Polaris is fixed to the point that it can be viewed literally for years on end, through a simple 1/2" pvc pipe, and never does it even approach the pipe's inner edge. That's certainly not much movement considering NASA claims it is bazillions of miles away where even the tiniest of movements would instantly show. Comparatively, the sun moves completely out of the same pvc viewer in 1 1/2 minutes.
If you're going to navigate a ship you ought to invest in more than a PVC pipe to view the North Star, Polaris (aka Pole Star, or Star of the Sea). Sailors can estimate how far they are from the Equator by measuring the vertical angle between the horizon and the Pole Star. They've been doing that for thousands of years.
Do you know why that is a reliable method?
-
If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circuмference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
-
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?
By all appearances, flat-earthers do not know the answers to these questions.
So they probably don't know the answer to this question, either:
Has it ever been possible to observe from earth the transit of the planet Mercury across the visible disc of the sun in the sky?
The North Star, Polaris is the fixed star around which the heavens go and a glaring proof the universe is not Heliocentric, that earth is fixed and the sun moves. That path of the sun crossing the celestial equator is known as the ecliptic. The transit of Mercury, the heavenly body that is a wandering star and not a planet... appears to cross the sun 13 times a century.
Polaris isn't really "fixed," because it wobbles in a tiny circle.
There are two other names for Polaris (North Star). Do you know what they are?
Polaris is fixed to the point that it can be viewed literally for years on end, through a simple 1/2" pvc pipe, and never does it even approach the pipe's inner edge. That's certainly not much movement considering NASA claims it is bazillions of miles away where even the tiniest of movements would instantly show. Comparatively, the sun moves completely out of the same pvc viewer in 1 1/2 minutes.
If you're going to navigate a ship you ought to invest in more than a PVC pipe to view the North Star, Polaris (aka Pole Star, or Star of the Sea). Sailors can estimate how far they are from the Equator by measuring the vertical angle between the horizon and the Pole Star. They've been doing that for thousands of years.
Do you know why that is a reliable method?
If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude south of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circuмference the farther South travelled. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude south of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circuмference the farther South travelled. The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, moreso the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.
-
If you're going to post, answer the question.
You have already posted all those things before, but you have not answered this question, above.
-
If you're going to post, answer the question.
You have already posted all those things before, but you have not answered this question, above.
The above response answers your question; you dislike the answer. :smile:
-
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?
By all appearances, flat-earthers do not know the answers to these questions.
So they probably don't know the answer to this question, either:
Has it ever been possible to observe from earth the transit of the planet Mercury across the visible disc of the sun in the sky?
The North Star, Polaris is the fixed star around which the heavens go and a glaring proof the universe is not Heliocentric, that earth is fixed and the sun moves. That path of the sun crossing the celestial equator is known as the ecliptic. The transit of Mercury, the heavenly body that is a wandering star and not a planet... appears to cross the sun 13 times a century.
Polaris isn't really "fixed," because it wobbles in a tiny circle.
There are two other names for Polaris (North Star). Do you know what they are?
Polaris is fixed to the point that it can be viewed literally for years on end, through a simple 1/2" pvc pipe, and never does it even approach the pipe's inner edge. That's certainly not much movement considering NASA claims it is bazillions of miles away where even the tiniest of movements would instantly show. Comparatively, the sun moves completely out of the same pvc viewer in 1 1/2 minutes.
If you're going to navigate a ship you ought to invest in more than a PVC pipe to view the North Star, Polaris (aka Pole Star, or Star of the Sea). Sailors can estimate how far they are from the Equator by measuring the vertical angle between the horizon and the Pole Star. They've been doing that for thousands of years.
Do you know why that is a reliable method?
I'm not going to navigate a ship. But if I did, the fixed position of the pole star is the stability upon which navigation there is made. Anyone can prove Polaris doesn't move even one iota, and the pvc pipe makes it affordable enough to prove that earth is not a rotating globe. Besides that, trumping that, both scripture and the Church teach that earth is fixed, and not a globe.
-
If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circuмference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
Indeed. Gyros in the planes are another proof, earth is not a globe.
-
If you have photos of the back side of the moon you ought to publish them.
Neil - she doesn't mean the BACK side of the moon. The moon does NOT rotate on its axis.
What it DOES do is a cartwheel across the sky each night as it traverses from east to west. In other words, the facial features, and the shadow, all turn in a clockwise direction upon its face. Like a wheel turning.
Guess what? The planets, like Jupiter, for example, do it too.
It is due to the law of perspective. (click link below, embed not working)
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/tpU6lStM_pk&t[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpU6lStM_pk&t
Great stuff! Also provable with a telescope or a camera with a healthy zoom. If someone wants to debunk flat earth: go do the work and get it done, and please refrain from parroting NASA. Flat earthers went to school and got indoctrinated like everyone else. Thanks be to the Catholic Church and empirical proof, we now know that faithless heliocentric nonsense is as void as the notion of outer space.
-
This post belongs better in this thread:
Hey there,
Here is a pretty good example of something we should not see.
It is from the village hermanville in north France to le Havre, a well known port village, and the mountains above it.
The pictures I got from google maps street view and from heywhatsthat.com, a website for viewing the contours of land at any given spot.
Here first map view of the place in question
(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/52/64/herman10.jpg)
It is from the pink X to the black X. It is this side profile which is shown below
(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/52/64/herman10.png)
For the earth curve calculator we are going to take 40 miles. You can see the elevation from the above image. It is just over 400 feet approximately.
We have given an allowance of 14 feet height for the camera from sea level. Pretty generous. Giving a few more feet will not alter our results significantly or detract from the point of the experiment as you will see.
Here is what we see
(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/52/64/le_hav13.png)
Here is what the earth curve calculator gives me. A whopping 836 feet. That's nearly 400 feet below the horizon. This would be impossible on a round earth.
(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/55/77/herman10.png)
Now the first objection usually given is refraction. That is why we took images from a sunny (warmer day) and a cooler cloudy day. There would be a variance in temperature and humidity, important factors in creating refraction and/or superior mirages.
Here are the results
A cloudy day
(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/52/64/le_hav14.png)
The first image was a sunny day.
Here are the two side by side, in case anyone thinks we are cheating with the different points at which the photo was taken
(https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/66/52/64/deux_i10.jpg)
-
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?
By all appearances, flat-earthers do not know the answers to these questions.
So they probably don't know the answer to this question, either:
Has it ever been possible to observe from earth the transit of the planet Mercury across the visible disc of the sun in the sky?
The North Star, Polaris is the fixed star around which the heavens go and a glaring proof the universe is not Heliocentric, that earth is fixed and the sun moves. That path of the sun crossing the celestial equator is known as the ecliptic. The transit of Mercury, the heavenly body that is a wandering star and not a planet... appears to cross the sun 13 times a century.
Polaris is not a "fixed star," nor has is always been the "north star." In ancient times before Christ, the star we now call Thuban was the star around which the other stars revolved. The ancient Greeks regarded Beta Ursae Minoris as close to marking north, but Pytheas (c. 320 B.C.) said that exact north was devoid of stars. The ancient Romans observed that the point directly north was equidistant between Beat Ursae Minoris and Alpha Ursae Minoris (the star we now call Polaris).
-
That's wonderful, but doesn't really solve your lack of curvature problem.
Are you not conscious that she did not necessarily mean fixed in a totally rigid way, but rather more or less?
-
That's wonderful, but doesn't really solve your lack of curvature problem.
Are you not conscious that she did not necessarily mean fixed in a totally rigid way, but rather more or less?
For clarity's sake, I wasn't taking the position that because Polaris isn't fixed over the centuries, that this means the earth is spherical. I was just pointing out that that particular argument regarding the stars doesn't make sense, because Polaris is not fixed, and the location of the stars do change over time.
Her statement - "The North Star, Polaris is the fixed star around which the heavens go" is not entierly true. It is on a nightly basis, in our current time, yes that is what happens, but go back a few centuries, and it was not true. That's all I'm saying.
-
That's fair enough. It's an interesting point you make, and I would like to know more.
-
a great video showing how the earth is not curved.
https://youtu.be/AjE-cDPJums