Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Matthew on March 08, 2025, 04:58:12 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc0nvCVXX34
-
Another great example.
-
Just like with other matters, I prefer things that are self-evident, with a bit of logic and common sense, basic EASILY VERIFIED rules of physics, etc.
For example, an object always casts a shadow the same size or larger -- never smaller. (The moon is supposed to cast a pinpoint shadow during a solar eclipse. huh? Can you demonstrate?)
This video touches on another issue... there should be a "bulge of the earth shadow" projected onto the sky TWICE A DAY, EVERY DAY -- but yet we never see this. If the earth is really a spinning globe, you would absolutely see this.
It's a question of geometry and mathematics -- easily verifiable and testable. You can build models.
-
Perhaps more precision is necessary regarding the behaviour of light, shadow and distance. This video demonstrates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vydJqiAnEgc&t=0s
I'm rereading Aristotle's "On the Heavens" in anticipation of the lunar eclipse. I think everyone should watch it if this topic is of interest - Aristotle uses the lunar eclipse as one of his reasons for a spherical Earth - and it's something we can all see for ourselves.
-
I'm rereading Aristotle's "On the Heavens" in anticipation of the lunar eclipse. I think everyone should watch it if this topic is of interest - Aristotle uses the lunar eclipse as one of his reasons for a spherical Earth - and it's something we can all see for ourselves.
But Aristotle wasn't infallible or omniscient. There is MUCH that Mr. Aristotle was ignorant of, or even positively wrong about. Moreover, Aristotle was a philosopher, not a scientist. He didn't even pretend to be a scientist in the modern sense (methodical exploration of the physical world, taking measurements, making experiments, creating abstract models, making predictions, the Scientific Method, etc.)
Just for starters, Aristotle lacked equipment such as the Nikon P100 camera which can bring ships back into view after they disappeared over the horizon. In the "olden days", men thought those ships were disappearing over the earth's curve. Today, with simple photographic equipment, we can "bring the ship back" by zooming in. It's a question of optics, perspective, and angular resolution -- not earth curvature.
The fact of the matter is, looking up to the sky and making conclusions about the earth is a "non sequitur" fallacy at best, and random foolishness at worst. See photo below.
-
Aristotle was merely the first to write about a lunar eclipse in relation to the shape of the earth. His ethos is worth noting - I am hoping to compare his observations with my own.
Aristotle lacked all of modern technology, but I've noticed in this discussion that much, if not all, of the data offered by those who say they have been in the upper stratosphere all the way to space, or who have commanded or reviewed instruments claimed to be in space - these are all discounted as manufactured or false. If the ethos of Aristotle and these men and their technology are all in doubt, then the ethos of anyone should be in question.
Looking up at the sky, or floating an orb in front of a light to prove a shadow can shrink - these are experiments that I can do and spur new wonder. This Friday, if the shadow thrown across the moon is circular, I would be inclined to agree with Aristotle, and he's not such bad company to keep. Will you wait up with me and see?
-
And Aristotle, as a Greek, had to toe the line in regards to the prevailing ideas of the day. If he hadn’t, he would’ve been killed like Socrates…
People (ie Catholics) have this romanticized view of the Greeks, that I’ll never understand. They were pagan occultists who worshipped false gods (ie the satanic sun god, Saturn). They openly practiced paedophilia. And they tried to wipe the Israelites/Maccabee’s off the face of the earth (ie the true religion of the time).
This race of people were abominable. All of their scientific “genius” is biased and agenda-driven, towards sun-worship, which was their RELIGION. Ergo, Greek science was a religion. Ergo, Catholics must question Greek science, not blindly accept it.
-
The lunar eclipses are explained by something called a “black sun” which is involved in lunar eclipses
-
The lunar eclipses are explained by something called a “black sun” which is involved in lunar eclipses
Speaking of which --
When watching an eclipse, you don't see the moon in the sky approach the sun, cover the sun for a bit, then slowly move off it and you see the moon move away. No, it's literally a black disk, like the sun is being occluded by some dark body. But it's not the moon.
I watched a video months ago, where a man carefully tracked where the moon was each night, and basically proved the moon was elsewhere when it was supposed to be on a path allowing it to block out the sun. He proved, with observations, careful measurements, and basic geometry (arc path the moon takes) that whatever blocked out the sun that day, it wasn't the moon. I don't remember the name of the video. But I bet it could be found.
-
I would like to have this discussion, but we seem to be drifting. I think we should establish each point to a certain degree - to certainity if possible - before moving to a new point. Otherwise, we risk a sort of gish gallop.
It was posited that shadows do not shrink. When I saw this, I said, aha! I've done this exact experiment! I was able to find a link that shows how to do the experiment; it's simple and quick. Given there are variables of light source size and distance between bodies, can we agree that shadows can be smaller than the object throwing them?
Next, we are considering ethos, or credibility. I believe you are advancing that a gentleman on Youtube has more credibility than Aristotle, or anyone else in the last 2,000 years (no astronomer in that time, regardless of civilization-to my knowledge-has posited a flat earth...unless we credit Samuel Rowbotham). And it seems that you are denying that there is technology that has entered and explored space or the moon--claims which I find credible. So, due to this great gulf between us, what is our criteria for ethos? I have begun the discussion by removing ethos insofar as I am offering that we do experiments we can verify ourselves such as shadows and observing the lunar eclipse. Here, we stand on our own ethos and can share results, if we decide to trust each other.
Regarding the "black sun", I have heard this offered before and done experiments to replicate the effect, but have seen no success. I have neither read nor seen demonstrable evidence (we are speaking of a lunar eclipse here, but, if I understand Matthew correctly, he posits that same body causes the solar eclipse as well). Please, I am open-explain how the black sun works. Is there a way of demonstrating it? Perhaps we can then develop an experiment.
-
I will respond to your main points later (I have to finish preparations for Mass at our chapel here in a few hours) but I would like to give some big-picture stuff (for you and other readers):
What you need to understand is that I believed in the Globe earth model for most of my life. Not only that, I was a sci-fi nerd. I didn't embrace "flat earth" (much less the LABEL of a "flat earther") lightly. Long story short, I was *forced* to that conclusion by the preponderance of evidence. Not proof (like having God show me the whole cosmos as a big picture?) but "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "a preponderance of evidence", like in court.
There are many pieces of evidence pro- or against that are "inconclusive" to be honest. In other words, there could be another explanation. These I set aside into their own piles. Other points are hard to verify. But then there are some that are easily observed, some involving math or logic, which really make you think.
I will say this -- once you reach a point of suspicion about the "accepted model", you start looking everywhere for further evidence/corroboration -- and you find it. Like the turning point in The Truman Show. He suddenly starts noticing everything, because *he* decided to open his mind a bit. Maybe one or two things got his attention at first, but once he thought about it, or considered the possibility something was off, then he started to look at things more objectively and critically. Then the evidence really piles up. That's how it was for me.
I would also like to refresh your memory that I started out by believing in cօռspιʀαcιҽs, including the infiltration of the Church. That's probably the first prerequisite. Then I learned about the fake moon landings, and was convinced 100% NASA is capable of such a bold lie. But I still believed in their near-earth and robotic explorer missions. Then in the early 2010's there was Sungenis "Copernican Principle" and a similar video series "Galileo Was Wrong". In these videos, I learned so much I had been utterly ignorant about. I didn't know that no experiment had ever shown the earth to move, and that in fact the contrary had been unwittingly proven, necessitating all sorts of mental gymnastics and houses of cards to be built (namely, Einstein and his theory of relativity).
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p46RmTdkIo8
-
Just like with other matters, I prefer things that are self-evident, with a bit of logic and common sense, basic EASILY VERIFIED rules of physics, etc.
For example, an object always casts a shadow the same size or larger -- never smaller. (The moon is supposed to cast a pinpoint shadow during a solar eclipse. huh? Can you demonstrate?)
If the source of light is bigger than the object the shadow will be smaller depending on the distance between the source, the object and the observer. You can easily check this at home, best if done at night. All you need is a lamp (light bulb) on a table in the middle of a room and a teaspoon, or a small round fruit like a key lime pocked with a fork. With the light bulb on, put yourself at arm-lenght distance from it. Grab the teaspoon in a vertical manner, close one eye. If the spoon is closer to the bulb you will see the ring of light bulb around it and no shadow projected on your face. As you get it closer to your eye, the light bulb will be completely "covered" by the spoon and your kids can see its shadow on your face.
If you use the small round object, put it closer to the light bulb and a white sheet of paper on the back, almost touching it. The size of the shadow will be smaller than the diameter of the round object. This part of the experiment only shows that the sun needs to be bigger than the moon, and that the moon needs to be pretty close to the earth, and both the earth and moon close enough to the sun to project a shadow smaller than its diameter.
Another fun game is positioning yourself, arm extended, with the pocked round object at a distance where from your position the object "equals" the size of the light bulb (your own eclipse). Make 1/4 turn (90 degrees) either to the right or the left. From your perspective you see half of the object illuminated. Make another 1/4 turn (180 degrees) and you will see a "full moon".
-
I would like to have this discussion, but we seem to be drifting. I think we should establish each point to a certain degree - to certainity if possible - before moving to a new point. Otherwise, we risk a sort of gish gallop.
It was posited that shadows do not shrink. When I saw this, I said, aha! I've done this exact experiment! I was able to find a link that shows how to do the experiment; it's simple and quick. Given there are variables of light source size and distance between bodies, can we agree that shadows can be smaller than the object throwing them?
Next, we are considering ethos, or credibility. I believe you are advancing that a gentleman on Youtube has more credibility than Aristotle, or anyone else in the last 2,000 years (no astronomer in that time, regardless of civilization-to my knowledge-has posited a flat earth...unless we credit Samuel Rowbotham). And it seems that you are denying that there is technology that has entered and explored space or the moon--claims which I find credible. So, due to this great gulf between us, what is our criteria for ethos? I have begun the discussion by removing ethos insofar as I am offering that we do experiments we can verify ourselves such as shadows and observing the lunar eclipse. Here, we stand on our own ethos and can share results, if we decide to trust each other.
Regarding the "black sun", I have heard this offered before and done experiments to replicate the effect, but have seen no success. I have neither read nor seen demonstrable evidence (we are speaking of a lunar eclipse here, but, if I understand Matthew correctly, he posits that same body causes the solar eclipse as well). Please, I am open-explain how the black sun works. Is there a way of demonstrating it? Perhaps we can then develop an experiment.
St Thomas taught that to be stable the earth must be flat. I would take the word of St Thomas over Aristotle
-
But Aristotle wasn't infallible or omniscient.
So, Aristotle's overall philosophical system, his epistemology, ontology, etc. ... they were spot on, and were adopted almost as-is by the scholastics (rightly so), although one might quibble over details.
But his science? He lacked much of the apparatus to conduct real experiments. So, for instance, he used the old ships disappearing from the bottom up argument as his primary reason for round earth, failing to take into account the laws of perspective, convergence with the horizon, waves that could obstruct vision bottom-up as the object becomes smaller, and just did not have the optics. With today's zoom cameras we can and do watch ships appear to disappear from bottom up but then can zoom in with the right optics and see the ship return to full view, meaning that the cause of the bottom-up disappearance was being misinterpreted.
Also, BTW, very few point out that a spherical object casting a shadow onto another sphere actually results in a shadow that's a straight line, not curved ... and many ancient cultures believed there was another dark body out there that cast shadows, caused eclipses, etc.
Back in the day, Aristotle (nor anyone else) had the modern scientific concept of what "stars" are, considering them to be smaller lights. If they had believed them to be distant suns, they would have remarked about how stars (and planets, which they considered wandering stars) can enter the darkened side of the moon, the one allegedly being occulted by the earth's shadow and REMAIN VISIBLE even though they should be BEHIND the solid mass of the darkened side of the sun. This has been reported by professional astronomers in astronomy journals, as something "defying explanation" ... except if maybe the moon is something other than the solid rock they claim it to be.
-
Just for starters, Aristotle lacked equipment such as the Nikon P100 camera which can bring ships back into view after they disappeared over the horizon. In the "olden days", men thought those ships were disappearing over the earth's curve. Today, with simple photographic equipment, we can "bring the ship back" by zooming in. It's a question of optics, perspective, and angular resolution -- not earth curvature.
Aristotle didn't have youtube to tell him what to believe, so he had to exercise his brain and think for himself. We have covered the bulge shadow and "pinpoint" shadows in the past. Belief is a choice, it doesn't change reality. TC iii's video on the mount Ranier shadow simulation was a good visual as to how the globe works, yet you refuse to even believe your eyes watching your most trusted visual source because they tell you you aren't really seeing what the simulation shows. I also called them out on this in the past; they do it a lot.
-
Speaking of which --
When watching an eclipse, you don't see the moon in the sky approach the sun, cover the sun for a bit, then slowly move off it and you see the moon move away. No, it's literally a black disk, like the sun is being occluded by some dark body. But it's not the moon.
I watched a video months ago, where a man carefully tracked where the moon was each night, and basically proved the moon was elsewhere when it was supposed to be on a path allowing it to block out the sun. He proved, with observations, careful measurements, and basic geometry (arc path the moon takes) that whatever blocked out the sun that day, it wasn't the moon. I don't remember the name of the video. But I bet it could be found.
I'll admit I haven't performed any moon location predictions, but I trust it is a relatively easy thing to do for those have the time and intent upon learning how, even without modern day electronics. Surely it would be obvious to many researchers before the internet became so widely used, that the moon could be predicted to line up in front of the sun at certain times, and if it doesn't correspond with the eclipses, then we should have heard about it by now. It may be so easy as to build an analog purely mechanical computer, something like turning a dial by hand with a few gears that show the date and (your favorite :trollface:) a 2D representation of the moon and sun turning on a flat disk until they overlap. A machinist/clock maker could make such a device. I think we would have heard by now if the moon didn't line up to block the sun.
-
Yes, this has quickly turned into a gish gallop. Enthusiasm is not to be denied, but I am looking for something a little more disciplined than intellectual whack-a-mole, and I'm sure we all would appreciate such clarity.
The original premise involved shadows - let us find consensus there first.
Then ethos must be established - what are the rules of who is to be believed? Anticipating no consensus, I propose we pursue principles we can actually confirm ourselves through observation or experimentation, like shadow size, observing the eclipse, etc. Aristotle seems to have provoked quite a reaction - my reference to him is to someone who was doing everything he could with what he had, an example starting point more than a sensei.
Then we can address the black sun proposition. That will require robust evidence.
God Speed and Holy Sunday to all.
-
What's up with the planet in the west looking like a crescent moon? I was looking at it with about 18x optical zoom. Could it be a globe floating way out there? Pic taken at 30x optical, and cropped.
(https://i.imgur.com/IHeJ6TL.jpeg)
-
Yes, this has quickly turned into a gish gallop. Enthusiasm is not to be denied, but I am looking for something a little more disciplined than intellectual whack-a-mole, and I'm sure we all would appreciate such clarity.
The original premise involved shadows - let us find consensus there first.
Then ethos must be established - what are the rules of who is to be believed? Anticipating no consensus, I propose we pursue principles we can actually confirm ourselves through observation or experimentation, like shadow size, observing the eclipse, etc. Aristotle seems to have provoked quite a reaction - my reference to him is to someone who was doing everything he could with what he had, an example starting point more than a sensei.
Then we can address the black sun proposition. That will require robust evidence.
God Speed and Holy Sunday to all.
Not sure what you're smoking, but this post made zero sense.
-
What's up with the planet in the west looking like a crescent moon? I was looking at it with about 18x optical zoom. Could it be a globe floating way out there? Pic taken at 30x optical, and cropped.
Why not address the OP instead of changing the subject? Surest sign of intellectual dishonesty is when people don't and/or can't refute some point or argument but then respond by changing the subject. None of us have an idea what's in that picture, nor do you.
Fact is that in a globe model we'd see the shadow of earth beneath the clouds as the sun sets and we'd see light coming in through windows rising above the actual level of the window itself.
-
Why not address the OP instead of changing the subject? Surest sign of intellectual dishonesty is when people don't and/or can't refute some point or argument but then respond by changing the subject. None of us have an idea what's in that picture, nor do you.
Fact is that in a globe model we'd see the shadow of earth beneath the clouds as the sun sets and we'd see light coming in through windows rising above the actual level of the window itself.
C'mon Ladislaus, don't you realize that boats disappear over a curve? Watch a boat. You do realize that planes fly around the outside of a globe because they can't fly over a flat earth, ok? Do you understand that there's an envelope in the atmosphere that keeps helicopters hovering while the earth moves underneath them and their relative positions don't change? Even if they do? Do you realize that oceans wrap around the outside of the globe because the gravity of the moon is super powerful? Can't you tell the sun is stationary and earth moves? Haven't you flown in the window seat of an airplane and not seen the curve? Do you realize that flat earthers are stupid shills that invent stuff to make money and gain prestigious gifts monetizing their theory? No doubt you secretly know that modern science is infallible, why not admit it? Have you seen that NASA has rockets and satellites that have proven the earth is round because you can see the flight trails are curved? Have you never used Google Earth or GPS? Obviously black holes suck, right? Aren't you some kind of malcontent that likes to diss authorities like Neil Degrasse Tyson and NASA because you're jealous? Not trying to hurt your feelings but you need to study a bit more.
-
I'll admit I haven't performed any moon location predictions
Please also admit that you don’t even understand why it matters. Yet you continue to be biased.
-
Not trying to hurt your feelings but you need to study a bit more.
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.4732353752.0782/flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u4.jpg)
-
Why not address the OP instead of changing the subject? Surest sign of intellectual dishonesty is when people don't and/or can't refute some point or argument but then respond by changing the subject. None of us have an idea what's in that picture, nor do you.
I think you and Matthew do it often enough. If you care to look outside and through a telescope or good binoculars or use a digital camera at around the same time as my post, you will see what I saw. It's in the west. I have an idea that it is a planet lit up by the sun.
Fact is that in a globe model we'd see the shadow of earth beneath the clouds as the sun sets
To a certain extent according to the laws of nature, we do.
and we'd see light coming in through windows rising above the actual level of the window itself.
Highly unlikely, and practically imperceptible in all but the rarest cases if it ever did happen. You flat earthers know so much about perspective, you should know this.
Not sure what you're smoking, but this post made zero sense.
Maybe it's what you're smoking. Ubi made a lot of sense.
-
Fact is that in a globe model we'd see the shadow of earth beneath the clouds as the sun sets and we'd see light coming in through windows rising above the actual level of the window itself.
The picture was taken after the sun was gone. 15 minutes later that cloud was in complete darkness. Sorry I didn't take a picture.
I know it is not exactly what you are talking about, but I don't know how to explain other than the sun went around the earth far enough to not cast light on the top of the cloud.
-
The picture was taken after the sun was gone. 15 minutes later that cloud was in complete darkness. Sorry I didn't take a picture.
I know it is not exactly what you are talking about, but I don't know how to explain other than the sun went around the earth far enough to not cast light on the top of the cloud.
I keep forgetting, somewhere I have a video I took of a sunrise where the bottom of the clouds were illuminated, then gradually the top.