Flat earth debunked.

[RaceRunner]

It is commonly asserted that “the Earth must be a globe because people have sailed round it.” Now, since this implies that we can sail round nothing unless it be a globe, and the fact is well known that we can sail round the Earth as a plane, the assertion is ridiculous, and we have another proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a “hill of water,” it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

Mr. Glaisher, in speaking of his balloon ascends, says: “The horizon always appeared on a level with the car.” Now, since we may search amongst the laws of optics in vain for any principle that would cause the surface of a globe to turn its face upwards instead of downwards, it is a clear proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

The Rev. D. Olmsted, in describing a diagram which is supposed to represent the Earth as a globe, with a figure of a man sticking out at each side and one hanging head downwards, says: “We should dwell on this point until it appears to us as truly up,”—in the direction given to these figures as it does with regard to a figure which he has placed on the top! Now, a system of philosophy which requires us to do something which is, really, the going out of our minds, by dwelling on an absurdity until we think it is a fact, cannot be a system based on God’s truth, which never requires anything of the kind. Since, then, the popular theoretical astronomy of the day requires this, it is evident that it is the wrong thing, and that this conclusion furnishes us with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

It is often said that the predictions of eclipses prove astronomers to be right in their theories. But it is not seen that this proves too much. It is well known that Ptolemy predicted eclipses for six-hundred years, on the basis of a plane Earth, with as much accuracy as they are predicted by modern observers. If, then, the predictions prove the truth of the particular theories current at the time, they just as well prove one side of the question as the other, and enable us to lay claim to a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

Seven-hundred miles is said to be the length of the great Canal, in China. Certain it is that, when this canal was formed, no “allowance” was made for “curvature.” Yet the canal is a fact without it. This is a Chinese proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

Mr. J. N. Lockyer says: “Because the Sun seems to rise in the east and set in the west, the Earth really spins in the opposite direction; that is, from west to east.” Now, this is no better than though we were to say—Because a man seems to be coming up the street, the street really goes down to the man! And since true science would contain no such nonsense as this, it follows that the so-called science of theoretical astronomy is not true, and, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

Mr. Lockyer says: “The appearances connected with the rising and setting of the Sun and stars may be due either to our earth being at rest and the Sun and stars travelling round it, or the earth itself turning round, while the Sun and stars are at rest.” Now, since true science does not allow of any such beggarly alternatives as these, it is plain that modern theoretical astronomy is not true science, and that its leading dogma is a fallacy. We have, then, a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

Mr. Lockyer, in describing his picture of the supposed proof of the Earth’s rotundity by means of ships rounding a “hill of water,” uses these words:—“Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is round, we explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do.” This is utterly unworthy of the name of Science! A science that begins by supposing, and ends by explaining the supposition, is, from beginning to end, a mere farce. The men who can do nothing better than amuse themselves in this way must be denounced as dreamers only, and their leading dogma a delusion. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[Gideon300]

I don't believe in flat earth, but the examples I gave for the glass sky are valid in my mind. Comparing Moon dogs, sun dogs, rainbows, and sprites to santa, tooth fairy, or Peter Pan is totally illogical. To me this shows blind faith in the Heliocentric model, which is equal to believing in flat earth.

I told you this would end up in a shouting match, because there is no way for both of us to go up 60 miles in altitude, but for the sake of argument, can you explain how moon dogs, sun dogs, rainbows, and sprites are explained without a glass sky?

Here is a moon dog and a flashlight beam, notice how the flashlight beam is very similar to a moon dog? Guess what a flashlight has?

Look up you will see a piece of glass, or piece of plastic in front of it. And remember you said, a glass sky isn't logical.



View attachment 248107 View attachment 248108

I do not have to go up to the edge of space to investigate. Thousands of other people and/or satellites with sensors have been there already. So far, no one/nothing has bumped into a glass sky. A glass sky will not produce an aurora. Ionised gases will.

Rainbows are well known to be the result of the prismatic effect of raindrops. That's why you don't see a rainbow on cloudless says. If the effect was the result of glass, it would be independent of rain.

 

[Gideon300]

Mr. Lockyer, in describing his picture of the supposed proof of the Earth’s rotundity by means of ships rounding a “hill of water,” uses these words:—“Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is round, we explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do.” This is utterly unworthy of the name of Science! A science that begins by supposing, and ends by explaining the supposition, is, from beginning to end, a mere farce. The men who can do nothing better than amuse themselves in this way must be denounced as dreamers only, and their leading dogma a delusion. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Proves nothing except that Mr Lockyer knows nothing when it comes to the globe earth.

 

[kinda]

I do not have to go up to the edge of space to investigate. Thousands of other people and/or satellites with sensors have been there already. So far, no one/nothing has bumped into a glass sky. A glass sky will not produce an aurora. Ionised gases will.

Rainbows are well known to be the result of the prismatic effect of raindrops. That's why you don't see a rainbow on cloudless says. If the effect was the result of glass, it would be independent of rain.

To be honest, I don't know to much about rainbows, or aurora borelis, so willing to take some lumps to understand it. I don't mind banging my head a few times to understand, so thanks for discussing this stuff with me....

Yes, and men walked on the moon, and drove a moon buggy, but you are forgetting about van allen radiation belts. Well, some of us don't believe everything NASA puts out. You can believe NASA if you want though.

Do you believe these astronauts are on the I.S.S.?

The astronauts look they are green screened on this video. It looks photoshopped to me, but that's just my opinion. At the 4 minute mark they are talking about the Orion capsule that could possibly take people to the moon....Pump the brakes. It's takes the internationally community to create the Orion? Want to dive into this one with me? lol


You skipped a few bits and added a few bits....

So, very clever answer on rainbows, but you forgot the bow part. Why are rainbows bow shaped?



Remember you said, they are only visible due to rain drops, are the rain drops perfectly bow shaped, to create the form?

I think it has been proven that glass can separate the white light into colors.

Aurora Borelis effect could possibly be made with glass.

I think it's safe to safe that all examples listed above could be replicated with glass and/or ice. Referring to moon dogs, sun dogs, rainbows, and sprites...Possibly Aurora Borealis as well. I don't see how you can say, it's totally out of the question, but maybe your leaning on NASA again for your final conclusion.

To be honest, this could take awhile for me to grasp all of the scenarios, but I feel safe in saying, that a glass sky could answer many the effects we see in the sky.

Lucy is in the sky with diamonds.

 

[Gideon300]

To be honest, I don't know to much about rainbows, or aurora borelis, so willing to take some lumps to understand it. I don't mind banging my head a few times to understand, so thanks for discussing this stuff with me....

Yes, and men walked on the moon, and drove a moon buggy, but you are forgetting about van allen radiation belts. Well, some of us don't believe everything NASA puts out. You can believe NASA if you want though.

Do you believe these astronauts are on the I.S.S.?

The astronauts look they are green screened on this video. It looks photoshopped to me, but that's just my opinion. At the 4 minute mark they are talking about the Orion capsule that could possibly take people to the moon....Pump the brakes. It's takes the internationally community to create the Orion? Want to dive into this one with me? lol


You skipped a few bits and added a few bits....

So, very clever answer on rainbows, but you forgot the bow part. Why are rainbows bow shaped?

View attachment 248121

Remember you said, they are only visible due to rain drops, are the rain drops perfectly bow shaped, to create the form?

I think it has been proven that glass can separate the white light into colors.

Aurora Borelis effect could possibly be made with glass.

I think it's safe to safe that all examples listed above could be replicated with glass and/or ice. Referring to moon dogs, sun dogs, rainbows, and sprites...Possibly Aurora Borealis as well. I don't see how you can say, it's totally out of the question, but maybe your leaning on NASA again for your final conclusion.

To be honest, this could take awhile for me to grasp all of the scenarios, but I feel safe in saying, that a glass sky could answer many the effects we see in the sky.

Lucy is in the sky with diamonds.

Space exploration is dangerous. The Van Allen belt is just one of many risks. Someone accused Buzz Aldrin of being part of faking the moon landing. Mr Aldrin punched him. He was 70 or so at the time.

I don't know why people bang on about NASA. Russia was in space well before the USA. China, Europe, Italy, Japan, India and France have space programs. Australia is getting into it as well.

Tell me how high this supposed glass ceiling is above the earth? How thick is it? Why don't we see rockets hitting the ceiling and destroying it? If the earth was surrounded by glass, we would all be well and truly cooked by now. Think how hot it gets in a car in the sun. I had a temperature of 49 C in my car a week or so ago. It was 32 C outside. A glass sky is simply not possible.

 

[Gideon300]

To be honest, I don't know to much about rainbows, or aurora borelis, so willing to take some lumps to understand it. I don't mind banging my head a few times to understand, so thanks for discussing this stuff with me....

Yes, and men walked on the moon, and drove a moon buggy, but you are forgetting about van allen radiation belts. Well, some of us don't believe everything NASA puts out. You can believe NASA if you want though.

Do you believe these astronauts are on the I.S.S.?

The astronauts look they are green screened on this video. It looks photoshopped to me, but that's just my opinion. At the 4 minute mark they are talking about the Orion capsule that could possibly take people to the moon....Pump the brakes. It's takes the internationally community to create the Orion? Want to dive into this one with me? lol


You skipped a few bits and added a few bits....

So, very clever answer on rainbows, but you forgot the bow part. Why are rainbows bow shaped?

View attachment 248121

Remember you said, they are only visible due to rain drops, are the rain drops perfectly bow shaped, to create the form?

I think it has been proven that glass can separate the white light into colors.

Aurora Borelis effect could possibly be made with glass.

I think it's safe to safe that all examples listed above could be replicated with glass and/or ice. Referring to moon dogs, sun dogs, rainbows, and sprites...Possibly Aurora Borealis as well. I don't see how you can say, it's totally out of the question, but maybe your leaning on NASA again for your final conclusion.

To be honest, this could take awhile for me to grasp all of the scenarios, but I feel safe in saying, that a glass sky could answer many the effects we see in the sky.

Lucy is in the sky with diamonds.

Further to my previous remarks, if you fly high enough a rainbow is seen as complete circle. If it was produced by a glass sky, then it would be independent of rain.

Yes, glass has a prismatic effect. The sun shining on our crystal chandeliers produces rainbows at times. There is a reason why they are called RAIN bows and not glass bows.

Glass is remarkably stable. Auroras are ephemeral. If the sky is glass. we should see auroras anywhere, any time. We do not.

 

[kinda]

Space exploration is dangerous. The Van Allen belt is just one of many risks. Someone accused Buzz Aldrin of being part of faking the moon landing. Mr Aldrin punched him. He was 70 or so at the time.

I don't know why people bang on about NASA. Russia was in space well before the USA. China, Europe, Italy, Japan, India and France have space programs. Australia is getting into it as well.

Tell me how high this supposed glass ceiling is above the earth? How thick is it? Why don't we see rockets hitting the ceiling and destroying it? If the earth was surrounded by glass, we would all be well and truly cooked by now. Think how hot it gets in a car in the sun. I had a temperature of 49 C in my car a week or so ago. It was 32 C outside. A glass sky is simply not possible.

Gideon, you passed up on a really good conversation, regarding the I.S.S. interview that was posted above.

Quick highlights from the video from the NASA astronaut.

-After the I.S.S. testing is complete, the next step is to build the SLS Rocket, to launch the Orion capsule. The SLS Rocket is bigger than anything we have right now.

-Right now we can only fly in earth's orbit, that's the farthest we can go. Once the SLS Rocket is complete we can launch the Orion capsule that can take manned missions to the moon, and....mars.

Ever wonder what happened to the Saturn Rocket that could take man missions to the moon?!?! lol Fifty years ago they landed on the moon, now they are trying to create the technology to replicate the mission. And you tell me the glass sky isn't logical. You want to listen to the video where the NASA employee says, "we destroyed the technology, that got us to the moon"? lol

If it's not humorous, than you must believe in the moon landings.



I don't know how thick the glass sky is, since I never been up to 60 miles above sea level to measure it. There are multiple glass spheres in inner space, but I don't know how thick the glass is. Sorry, not sure how that helps. One concave hollow earther believes, the glass sky is made from Libyan desert glass.



Supposedly there were tests with rockets in the sky, but who knows what is true. I really believe the public is told one thing, but the military believes something else. Ever hear of classified information?!?! Who knows what is true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl



A car has a far smaller capacity to absorb heat, than the earth. Plus, there are seasons, and the sun is moving constantly. Are you honestly comparing a car's loading capacity with the earth? I thought you were the expert on logic?!?! lol

 

[kinda]

Further to my previous remarks, if you fly high enough a rainbow is seen as complete circle. If it was produced by a glass sky, then it would be independent of rain.

Yes, glass has a prismatic effect. The sun shining on our crystal chandeliers produces rainbows at times. There is a reason why they are called RAIN bows and not glass bows.

Glass is remarkably stable. Auroras are ephemeral. If the sky is glass. we should see auroras anywhere, any time. We do not.

These are many assumptions, that would be really hard to prove one way or the other. If that's what you believe more power to you. I just don't share your view.

We don't really know how the rays operate in space, well, at least I don't. Light, glass, and angles can create some amazing entertaintment.



Inverted mirages.



I think the very fact their are inverted mirages prove their is a glass sky, but you probably gonna believe the different air temperatures that causes holograms in the sky.

 

[Gideon300]

Gideon, you passed up on a really good conversation, regarding the I.S.S. interview that was posted above.

Quick highlights from the video from the NASA astronaut.

-After the I.S.S. testing is complete, the next step is to build the SLS Rocket, to launch the Orion capsule. The SLS Rocket is bigger than anything we have right now.

-Right now we can only fly in earth's orbit, that's the farthest we can go. Once the SLS Rocket is complete we can launch the Orion capsule that can take manned missions to the moon, and....mars.

Ever wonder what happened to the Saturn Rocket that could take man missions to the moon?!?! lol Fifty years ago they landed on the moon, now they are trying to create the technology to replicate the mission. And you tell me the glass sky isn't logical. You want to listen to the video where the NASA employee says, "we destroyed the technology, that got us to the moon"? lol

If it's not humorous, than you must believe in the moon landings.

View attachment 248150

I don't know how thick the glass sky is, since I never been up to 60 miles above sea level to measure it. There are multiple glass spheres in inner space, but I don't know how thick the glass is. Sorry, not sure how that helps. One concave hollow earther believes, the glass sky is made from Libyan desert glass.

View attachment 248151

Supposedly there were tests with rockets in the sky, but who knows what is true. I really believe the public is told one thing, but the military believes something else. Ever hear of classified information?!?! Who knows what is true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl

View attachment 248153

A car has a far smaller capacity to absorb heat, than the earth. Plus, there are seasons, and the sun is moving constantly. Are you honestly comparing a car's loading capacity with the earth? I thought you were the expert on logic?!?! lol

There is a fixed amount of air. If the sun has been shining through glass for 6,000 years then the atmosphere should be overheated. The sea should also be exceptionally hot. Water vapour also traps heat. This is demonstrable in a laboratory. If there is no escape for heat, life should not exist on earth.

"The sun produces 1.23 x 10 ^ 35 Joules of energy in one year. To compare, a nuclear weapon only gives off 4.18 x 10 ^ 15 Joules of energy, which is less energy than the Sun produces in ONE SECOND. All this heat energy is what powers life here on Earth, and is strong enough to be felt 150 million kilometers away."

Glass would trap all that energy.

 

[kinda]

There is a fixed amount of air. If the sun has been shining through glass for 6,000 years then the atmosphere should be overheated. The sea should also be exceptionally hot. Water vapour also traps heat. This is demonstrable in a laboratory. If there is no escape for heat, life should not exist on earth.

"The sun produces 1.23 x 10 ^ 35 Joules of energy in one year. To compare, a nuclear weapon only gives off 4.18 x 10 ^ 15 Joules of energy, which is less energy than the Sun produces in ONE SECOND. All this heat energy is what powers life here on Earth, and is strong enough to be felt 150 million kilometers away."

Glass would trap all that energy.

I'm not buying your thought process, since the oceans are not boiling, and the earth isn't on fire. There has been stories of a paragliders getting trapped into air currents that brought them way to high, and they almost froze to death, NOT almost dying from being overheated.

 

[kinda]

I wrote the post above, when I was just wakening up. It might not of been the most well thought out post, but I still like it.

To be honest, I think 60 miles is plenty of room for sun's heat on earth to cool off, in the atmosphere. Plus with all the moisture in the air, it would eventually cool, gather, and come down as rain. I think the glass ceiling is needed also, to trap the moisture, so we get rainfall.

Also, the glass sky would be beneficial to keep air pressure, and keep gasses inside of earth, rather than drift off into inner space.



It's not your turn to start answer questions, I have been in the spotlight plenty.

How you see moon dogs, sun dogs, and sprites possible, without a glass/ice sky?!?!

 

[Gideon300]

I'm not buying your thought process, since the oceans are not boiling, and the earth isn't on fire. There has been stories of a paragliders getting trapped into air currents that brought them way to high, and they almost froze to death, NOT almost dying from being overheated.

Exactly. And that is precisely why there is no glass sky. God perfectly balanced the atmosphere. Without water vapour and CO2, the earth would freeze as heat would escape to space. The ozone layer shields us from the worst of UV rays (the cause of sunburn). Problems arise because sinful man recklessly messes with God's creation.

May I suggest that you read my posts a little more carefully. You completely missed the point of what I said.