Does the Bible support the idea of a spinning ball earth flying through space, or is that a Satanic, Masonic lie?

[posthuman]

All Mssr @RaceRunner will do is ignore the facts and post more boldfaced lying memes.
Mssr Gary will applaud, and Mssr Moses will put red X's on every post that tells the truth.

What qualifies this as "Bible Discussion"???

@CS1 can we please move this trash back to "conspiracy" where it belongs? it's frankly embarrassing & offensive to exist on this site at all.

 

[posthuman]

truly it is spoken, "not many wise are called"

 

[RaceRunner]

All Mssr @RaceRunner will do is ignore the facts and post more boldfaced lying memes.
Mssr Gary will applaud, and Mssr Moses will put red X's on every post that tells the truth.

What qualifies this as "Bible Discussion"???

@CS1 can we please move this trash back to "conspiracy" where it belongs? it's frankly embarrassing & offensive to exist on this site at all.

 

[RaceRunner]

All Mssr @RaceRunner will do is ignore the facts and post more boldfaced lying memes.
Mssr Gary will applaud, and Mssr Moses will put red X's on every post that tells the truth.

What qualifies this as "Bible Discussion"???

@CS1 can we please move this trash back to "conspiracy" where it belongs? it's frankly embarrassing & offensive to exist on this site at all.

 

[RaceRunner]

 

[RaceRunner]

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

i went to an open research forum that inputs ideas and wait to see of others can disprove them. one of the things i mentioned was, what's the IQ of the average Flat-Earther and why are they wrong.

this, by far, best answer ever.


Here’s the problem:
They don’t experiment for themselves. They don’t know how to. The most advanced thing they do is “Go look outside for yourself!” or “Look what happens when I pour water over this ball! It doesn’t stick!” Occasionally you get one that botches the Pythagorean Theorem.

These are not proofs.

Take the Pythagorean Theorem for example. It’s an attempt at actually doing the math, at least, but it’s a poor one. They aren’t thinking about the situation fully. So they try to use this simple math:

To prove things like “a lighthouse shouldn’t be visible at X miles/kilometers.”
Which simply isn’t enough. They always, to a man, fail to properly account for the height of the observer, which is far more complex than simply adding the person’s height.
What you find when you do the actual math is that all those distances they’re trying to refute is that the math works.
Here’s the equation you’re supposed to use for such proofs.

A bit more complex… it’s two Pythagorean theorems smashed together. Flat Earther proofs are always done in a Flat Earth context, even when they are trying to do an experiment that “should work if the world is a globe.” In the case of the Pythagorean Theorem, they arrange their triangles wrong. The right angle isn’t at your feet, it’s at the horizon. One leg is the radius of the earth, and the hypotenuse is the radius plus height of the observer, and for the other triangle it’s the height of the object being observed.

The distance between the two is the combination of the other two legs. Do the math (it’s pretty simple) and if your total distance is greater than the actual distance, then it makes sense for you to be able to see the thing.

Flat Earthers will also use terrible logic puzzles. “I don’t feel like I’m spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.” Well, unless you’re on the equator, you’re not. And you and the Earth are spinning at the same rate, so you won’t feel it, just like you don’t feel relative motion in a car. You are the car share the same velocity. What you can feel is acceleration. “Well then shouldn’t the oceans be flung off at 1,000 miles per hour?”

The fact that Flat Earthers are so ready to cite “oceans” as opposed to “everything” shows a severe lack of understanding of inertia - as if water acts any differently. But, for any Flat Earthers who want to prove this, I invite you to determine the centrifugal force being enacted on any object, then prove that gravity isn’t strong enough to hold it down. If you (the Flat Earthers) want to argue this point, you lead with this math or your comment will be deleted the second I see it, as you’ve otherwise been disproven and prove nothing more than that you are a pawn.

But, of course, they never will.

I know that Flat Earthers are wrong, because I actually went outside and experimented. Unlike Flat Earthers I was not merely satisfied to sit at a computer and believe what I was told by YouTube videos. I was not merely satisfied to make claims.

I did what they all preach one should do. Experiment. They do not explain, either. They do not test their hypothesis. They assume and nothing more. They see numbers their brains cannot fathom and believe that it’s an argument. They see figures that their brains cannot think critically about, and think that their inability to think critically is an argument. How many Flat Earthers have you seen say, “Do you really think the sun is 93 Million miles away?” That’s what they think constitutes an argument? Ask them to prove it isn’t, and they fail to prove it, usually ignoring the question entirely.

The best is when they say NASA photos are lies, then the only “evidence” they give is photos, not being able to prove it’s own validity, while not being able to prove that the NASA photos are faked.

I, on the other hand, have standards. I went out and measured, calculated, and made conclusive observations.
“Well, the Earth looks flat.” So does a basketball when you’re close enough.

Flat Earthers cannot explain how I obtained my results without accusing me of being a part of the conspiracy, which they cannot prove.

Flat Earthers cannot explain how a Cavendish Gravity Torsion Rig works without the existence of gravity, which disproves Flat Earth, so they refuse to do the experiment despite the relative simplicity. They can also not explain a Jolly Balance’s effects.

Flat Earthers cannot explain how one can observe only half-of-the-sun (or more, or less) during a sunset/sunrise, so they ignore it.

Flat Earthers cannot explain how I was able to observe Mt. Fuji rise/fall over the horizon instead of merely coming into view via perspective, so they refuse to acknowledge this phenomenon exists.

Flat Earthers cannot explain the Coriolis Effect, so they deny it’s existence despite the fact that anyone can prove it with a rifle at distances of 1000 yards and above, if you can find a range that far.

Flat Earthers cannot explain how a plane flight from anywhere on the Southern Hemisphere which does not cross the Northern Hemisphere (they exist, from South America to Australia) is as short as it is. They take only ~13 hours, whereas on a Flat Earth, directly over Asia/North America they would take ~33 hours (except we can prove they do not cross these landmasses as they would have to), and greater than 50 hours by the path they actually take near Antarctica. So they deny that these regularly occurring flights exist:

 

[RaceRunner]

i went to an open research forum that inputs ideas and wait to see of others can disprove them. one of the things i mentioned was, what's the IQ of the average Flat-Earther and why are they wrong.

this, by far, best answer ever.


Here’s the problem:
They don’t experiment for themselves. They don’t know how to. The most advanced thing they do is “Go look outside for yourself!” or “Look what happens when I pour water over this ball! It doesn’t stick!” Occasionally you get one that botches the Pythagorean Theorem.

These are not proofs.

Take the Pythagorean Theorem for example. It’s an attempt at actually doing the math, at least, but it’s a poor one. They aren’t thinking about the situation fully. So they try to use this simple math:

To prove things like “a lighthouse shouldn’t be visible at X miles/kilometers.”
Which simply isn’t enough. They always, to a man, fail to properly account for the height of the observer, which is far more complex than simply adding the person’s height.
What you find when you do the actual math is that all those distances they’re trying to refute is that the math works.
Here’s the equation you’re supposed to use for such proofs.

A bit more complex… it’s two Pythagorean theorems smashed together. Flat Earther proofs are always done in a Flat Earth context, even when they are trying to do an experiment that “should work if the world is a globe.” In the case of the Pythagorean Theorem, they arrange their triangles wrong. The right angle isn’t at your feet, it’s at the horizon. One leg is the radius of the earth, and the hypotenuse is the radius plus height of the observer, and for the other triangle it’s the height of the object being observed.

The distance between the two is the combination of the other two legs. Do the math (it’s pretty simple) and if your total distance is greater than the actual distance, then it makes sense for you to be able to see the thing.

Flat Earthers will also use terrible logic puzzles. “I don’t feel like I’m spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.” Well, unless you’re on the equator, you’re not. And you and the Earth are spinning at the same rate, so you won’t feel it, just like you don’t feel relative motion in a car. You are the car share the same velocity. What you can feel is acceleration. “Well then shouldn’t the oceans be flung off at 1,000 miles per hour?”

The fact that Flat Earthers are so ready to cite “oceans” as opposed to “everything” shows a severe lack of understanding of inertia - as if water acts any differently. But, for any Flat Earthers who want to prove this, I invite you to determine the centrifugal force being enacted on any object, then prove that gravity isn’t strong enough to hold it down. If you (the Flat Earthers) want to argue this point, you lead with this math or your comment will be deleted the second I see it, as you’ve otherwise been disproven and prove nothing more than that you are a pawn.

But, of course, they never will.

I know that Flat Earthers are wrong, because I actually went outside and experimented. Unlike Flat Earthers I was not merely satisfied to sit at a computer and believe what I was told by YouTube videos. I was not merely satisfied to make claims.

I did what they all preach one should do. Experiment. They do not explain, either. They do not test their hypothesis. They assume and nothing more. They see numbers their brains cannot fathom and believe that it’s an argument. They see figures that their brains cannot think critically about, and think that their inability to think critically is an argument. How many Flat Earthers have you seen say, “Do you really think the sun is 93 Million miles away?” That’s what they think constitutes an argument? Ask them to prove it isn’t, and they fail to prove it, usually ignoring the question entirely.

The best is when they say NASA photos are lies, then the only “evidence” they give is photos, not being able to prove it’s own validity, while not being able to prove that the NASA photos are faked.

I, on the other hand, have standards. I went out and measured, calculated, and made conclusive observations.
“Well, the Earth looks flat.” So does a basketball when you’re close enough.

Flat Earthers cannot explain how I obtained my results without accusing me of being a part of the conspiracy, which they cannot prove.

Flat Earthers cannot explain how a Cavendish Gravity Torsion Rig works without the existence of gravity, which disproves Flat Earth, so they refuse to do the experiment despite the relative simplicity. They can also not explain a Jolly Balance’s effects.

Flat Earthers cannot explain how one can observe only half-of-the-sun (or more, or less) during a sunset/sunrise, so they ignore it.

Flat Earthers cannot explain how I was able to observe Mt. Fuji rise/fall over the horizon instead of merely coming into view via perspective, so they refuse to acknowledge this phenomenon exists.

Flat Earthers cannot explain the Coriolis Effect, so they deny it’s existence despite the fact that anyone can prove it with a rifle at distances of 1000 yards and above, if you can find a range that far.

Flat Earthers cannot explain how a plane flight from anywhere on the Southern Hemisphere which does not cross the Northern Hemisphere (they exist, from South America to Australia) is as short as it is. They take only ~13 hours, whereas on a Flat Earth, directly over Asia/North America they would take ~33 hours (except we can prove they do not cross these landmasses as they would have to), and greater than 50 hours by the path they actually take near Antarctica. So they deny that these regularly occurring flights exist:

Anyone can prove the sea-horizon perfectly straight and the entire Earth perfectly flat using nothing more than a level, tripods and a wooden plank. At any altitude above sea-level, simply fix a 6-12 foot long, smooth, leveled board edgewise upon tripods and observe the skyline from eye-level behind it. The distant horizon will always align perfectly parallel with the upper edge of the board. Furthermore, if you move in a half-circle from one end of the board to the other whilst observing the skyline over the upper edge, you will be able to trace a clear, flat 10-20 miles depending on your altitude. This would be impossible if the Earth were a globe 25,000 miles in circumference; the horizon would align over the center of the board but then gradually, noticeably decline towards the extremities. Just ten miles on each side would necessitate an easily visible curvature of 66.6 feet from each end to the center.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

if you haven't figured it out yet, he doesn't think the intelligence quotient of the average Flat earther, reaches much past the basement floor

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

View attachment 253385
Anyone can prove the sea-horizon perfectly straight and the entire Earth perfectly flat using nothing more than a level, tripods and a wooden plank. At any altitude above sea-level, simply fix a 6-12 foot long, smooth, leveled board edgewise upon tripods and observe the skyline from eye-level behind it. The distant horizon will always align perfectly parallel with the upper edge of the board. Furthermore, if you move in a half-circle from one end of the board to the other whilst observing the skyline over the upper edge, you will be able to trace a clear, flat 10-20 miles depending on your altitude. This would be impossible if the Earth were a globe 25,000 miles in circumference; the horizon would align over the center of the board but then gradually, noticeably decline towards the extremities. Just ten miles on each side would necessitate an easily visible curvature of 66.6 feet from each end to the center.

you wouldn't understand Mathematics even if someone created a chip implant of every theory, formula, hypothesis, result and gave you a clue!

 

[RaceRunner]

you wouldn't understand Mathematics even if someone created a chip implant of every theory, formula, hypothesis, result and gave you a clue!

I thought the experiment I posted above would be too difficult for you to understand.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I thought the experiment I posted above would be too difficult for you to understand.

I presented what you're doing in the post above yours. the man explained how you are copy/pasting incorrect hypotheses.

Take the Pythagorean Theorem for example. It’s an attempt at actually doing the math, at least, but it’s a poor one. They aren’t thinking about the situation fully. So they try to use this simple math:

To prove things like “a lighthouse shouldn’t be visible at X miles/kilometers.”
Which simply isn’t enough. [[[They always, to a man, fail to properly account for the height]]] of the observer, which is far more complex than simply adding the person’s height.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I presented what you're doing in the post above yours. the man explained how you are copy/pasting incorrect hypotheses.

Take the Pythagorean Theorem for example. It’s an attempt at actually doing the math, at least, but it’s a poor one. They aren’t thinking about the situation fully. So they try to use this simple math:

To prove things like “a lighthouse shouldn’t be visible at X miles/kilometers.”
Which simply isn’t enough. [[[They always, to a man, fail to properly account for the height]]] of the observer, which is far more complex than simply adding the person’s height.

what he is saying, it's not that you are 6 feet tall so you apply 6 feet to your formula, but, how high are you above Sea Level + 6 feet would be the most ACCURATE way to assess.

there's other ways beyond using seal level, i just tossed sea level to show a clearer example.

it's those SMALL things that reveal their IGNORANCE and lack of intelligence, is what he is pointing out.

 

[RaceRunner]

If the Earth were actually a big ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the horizon would be noticeably curved even at sea-level, and everything on or approaching the horizon would appear to tilt backwards slightly from your perspective. Distant buildings along the horizon would all look like leaning towers of Piza falling away from the observer. A hot-air balloon taking off then drifting steadily away from you, on a ball-Earth would slowly and constantly appear to lean back more and more the farther away it flew, the bottom of the basket coming gradually into view as the top of the balloon disappears from sight. In reality, however, buildings, balloons, trees, people, anything and everything at right angles to the ground/horizon remains so regardless the distance or height of the observer.

 

[RaceRunner]

Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.

 

[RaceRunner]

In a second experiment Dr. Rowbotham affixed flags 5 feet high along the shoreline, one at every mile marker. Then using his telescope mounted at 5 feet just behind the first flag looked over the tops of all 6 flags which lined up in a perfectly straight line. If the Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the flags should have progressively dipped down after the first establishing line of sight, the second would have descended 8 inches, 32 inches for the third, 6 feet for the fourth, 10 feet 8 inches for the fifth, and 16 feet 8 inches for the sixth.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

see, how he just post pictures but no real formula with actual calculated numbers to show how they arrive to it.

if it was fact, the Mathematical Formula and Process to Solve would be shown!

he's just giving numbers and flat lines. sign of no intelligence.

 

[Magenta]

I went to an open research forum that inputs ideas and wait to see of others can disprove them. one
of the things i mentioned was, what's the IQ of the average Flat-Earther and why are they wrong.

Netflix has (or maybe did have, not sure if it is still there) a documentary on flat earthers called
Behind The Curve (<= imdb link), from 2018. I watched about half of it a while back, and was a
little perplexed at first because it began by presenting it as if it were a valid belief system, but
the further you get into it, the more they show how ridiculous the theories are, and those who
hold to such beliefs cannot in any way prove through experimentation any of their assertions.
In fact, as flat Earth advocates carry out experiments to test the hypothesis that the Earth is flat,
the results confirm that the Earth is a globe, and so were discarded by them. Still the #'s grow.

 

[RaceRunner]

see, how he just post pictures but no real formula with actual calculated numbers to show how they arrive to it.

if it was fact, the Mathematical Formula and Process to Solve would be shown!

he's just giving numbers and flat lines. sign of no intelligence.

Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is known that the horizon at sea, whatever distance it may extend to the right and left of the observer on land, always appears as a straight line. The following experiment has been tried in various parts of the country. At Brighton, on a rising ground near the race course, two poles were fixed in the earth six yards apart, and directly opposite the sea. Between these poles a line was tightly stretched parallel to the horizon. From the center of the line the view embraced not less than 20 miles on each side making a distance of 40 miles. A vessel was observed sailing directly westwards; the line cut the rigging a little above the bulwarks, which it did for several hours or until the vessel had sailed the whole distance of 40 miles. The ship coming into view from the east would have to ascend an inclined plane for 20 miles until it arrived at the center of the arc, whence it would have to descend for the same distance. The square of 20 miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the vessel would be below the line at the beginning and at the end of the 40 miles.”

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is known that the horizon at sea, whatever distance it may extend to the right and left of the observer on land, always appears as a straight line. The following experiment has been tried in various parts of the country. At Brighton, on a rising ground near the race course, two poles were fixed in the earth six yards apart, and directly opposite the sea. Between these poles a line was tightly stretched parallel to the horizon. From the center of the line the view embraced not less than 20 miles on each side making a distance of 40 miles. A vessel was observed sailing directly westwards; the line cut the rigging a little above the bulwarks, which it did for several hours or until the vessel had sailed the whole distance of 40 miles. The ship coming into view from the east would have to ascend an inclined plane for 20 miles until it arrived at the center of the arc, whence it would have to descend for the same distance. The square of 20 miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the vessel would be below the line at the beginning and at the end of the 40 miles.”

see, he cannot provide a Mathematical Formula.
he provides stories with numbers because he doesn't know what the heck he is doing!