Flat Earthers

[Susanna]

This argument requires a logical fallacy - that the flight plan always uses the shortest path. There is no requirement for flight plans ever to use the shortest path, so just because a trip from Los Angeles to Dubai makes the aircraft cross Greenland and Scandinavia, doesn't necessarily mean this path is the shortest.

Okay, have a look a 1,000 flight plans and see where the vast majority of them are going, take into consideration weather conditions and whatnot, then make a fuel consumption estimate and finally, tell me which airline company is gonna be filing for bankruptcy protection first - the one crossing Greenland and Scandinavia, or the company believing the earth is flat and which is just going straight to Dubai according to their map?

Oh, and by the way, you’re not allowed in the cockpit if your mind is so out of whack that you believe the earth is flat 😂.

 

[Dino246]

And I likewise have countered your disproofs with disproofs of ball-Earth. We are at an impasse, it would seem. The only thing we can seem to agree on is that the curvature of the Earth has never been measured on Earth.

Actually, it has, a few thousand years ago, by Eratosthenes.

Do your homework, man.

 

[iamsoandso]

lol, come on it's 2019,,,take a trip around the world and let things like blood letting,the Easter bunny and a flat earth go...

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Actually, it has, a few thousand years ago, by Eratosthenes.

Do your homework, man.

In order to "prove" the ball-Earth, Eratosthenes had to assume that the Earth was a ball, and the sun far away (parallel sun rays). First, to assume something in order to "prove" it is a logical fallacy, because it actually proves nothing, and is called circular reasoning. Had Eratosthenes assumed the Earth was flat, his calculations would have indicated to him the sun was about 40,000km away. Can I therefore state that Eratosthenes proved a flat Earth? Second, Eratosthenes' assumption that the sun is far away, and producing parallel rays, is clearly false, from natural evidence and observation (the sun's rays are not parallel). So Eratosthenes "proof" that Earth is a ball is clearly wrong.

Okay, have a look a 1,000 flight plans and see where the vast majority of them are going, take into consideration weather conditions and whatnot, then make a fuel consumption estimate and finally, tell me which airline company is gonna be filing for bankruptcy protection first - the one crossing Greenland and Scandinavia, or the company believing the earth is flat and which is just going straight to Dubai according to their map?

The airlines simply have their planes follow designated flight routes, and factor this into their costings. The shape of the Earth can't be proved with economics.

 

[Dino246]

In order to "prove" the ball-Earth, Eratosthenes had to assume that the Earth was a ball, and the sun far away (parallel sun rays). First, to assume something in order to "prove" it is a logical fallacy, because it actually proves nothing, and is called circular reasoning. Had Eratosthenes assumed the Earth was flat, his calculations would have indicated to him the sun was about 40,000km away. Can I therefore state that Eratosthenes proved a flat Earth? Second, Eratosthenes' assumption that the sun is far away, and producing parallel rays, is clearly false, from natural evidence and observation (the sun's rays are not parallel). So Eratosthenes "proof" that Earth is a ball is clearly wrong.

You have engaged in a logical fallacy here by misreading my post. Here are your words to which I responded:

"The only thing we can seem to agree on is that the curvature of the Earth has never been measured on Earth."

I said nothing about proving that the ball-Earth.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

You have engaged in a logical fallacy here by misreading my post. Here are your words to which I responded:

"The only thing we can seem to agree on is that the curvature of the Earth has never been measured on Earth."

I said nothing about proving that the ball-Earth.

Your post was not misread. Indeed, the curvature of the Earth was not measured by Eratosthenes, as you argued. What was measured by Eratosthenes was the angle to the sun at two different locations, and an estimate made of the distance between measurement locations.

 

[Dino246]

Your post was not misread. Indeed, the curvature of the Earth was not measured by Eratosthenes, as you argued. What was measured by Eratosthenes was the angle to the sun at two different locations, and an estimate made of the distance between measurement locations.

He concluded that the earth was a certain diameter. He was correct, within reasonable tolerances. His calculations effectively measured the curvature of the earth. Your statement was incorrect, period.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

He concluded that the earth was a certain diameter. He was correct, within reasonable tolerances. His calculations effectively measured the curvature of the earth. Your statement was incorrect, period.

Judging by your apparent ignorance on what Eratosthenes actually did and didn't measure, it may be prudent for you to take your own advice, posted again below for your convenience.

Do your homework, man.

 

[posthuman]

actually did and didn't measure

did you watch the sunset, stars & sunrise yet?

i watched the stars for several hours last night. their apparent motion is in circular paths around the north pole ((i'm in the northern hemisphere)).

if the earth is flat, they would move in elliptical paths.
also, if the reason the sun sets is that light can only travel so far, so that night is when the distance to the sun is to great, i shouldn't be seeing stars at all.

2 for 1

only one disproof is needed.

generosity: 2 more

i saw the sunrise. the full disc of the sun was visible appearing over the horizon. there was a moment when half the disc was visible and half below the horizon. FE model demands that the sun is a tiny dot ((owing to distance)) gradually getting larger, never less than 15 or 20 degrees below the horizon. but at first light the sun appears larger than it does now that it's higher in the sky - its size delta is opposite FE prediction.

that's really a lot of contradictions to FE and all perfectly agreeing with the standard model. but i'll just count it as one.
here's another:

as the sun rose it shown light on the bottom of the clouds higher ((angularly)) in the sky. this is 'flat out' impossible in any FE model.

only one disproof is needed.

only one disproof is needed.

only one disproof is needed.

only one disproof is needed.

 

[posthuman]

God made the sky; the sun moon and stars.

God destroys flat earth theory.

deal with it.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

God made the sky; the sun moon and stars.

God destroys flat earth theory.

deal with it.

So why does His description of Earth imply it is flat?

 

[posthuman]

So why does His description of Earth imply it is flat?

it doesn't.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

did you watch the sunset, stars & sunrise yet?

Yeah. But not for as long as you.

i watched the stars for several hours last night. their apparent motion is in circular paths around the north pole ((i'm in the northern hemisphere)).

if the earth is flat, they would move in elliptical paths.

It's interesting to note that there would appear to be insufficient evidence here on Earth, so as to invoke the motions of the Heavenly bodies, for globalists to try to prove the Earth's shape to be globular. I agree that stars move in circular paths about Polaris. If the Earth is a ball, rotating about the sun, why does Polaris maintain its fixed position, irrespective of one's latitude? It should only appear fixed at the very North, if the motion of the stars is due to Earth's rotation.

also, if the reason the sun sets is that light can only travel so far, so that night is when the distance to the sun is to great, i shouldn't be seeing stars at all.

Good argument. The night stars one can see must therefore be closer than the sun (at night), unless there is a property of star-light we are not considering. During the day, the sun's light drowns out the stars, but as the sun moves farther away, the stars in the viewer's visual range (i.e. due to distance limits of light) can be seen.

i saw the sunrise. the full disc of the sun was visible appearing over the horizon. there was a moment when half the disc was visible and half below the horizon. FE model demands that the sun is a tiny dot ((owing to distance)) gradually getting larger, never less than 15 or 20 degrees below the horizon. but at first light the sun appears larger than it does now that it's higher in the sky - its size delta is opposite FE prediction.

The apparent size changes of the sun during the day is also opposite ball-Earth predictions, which would require the sun maintain roughly the same size throughout the day (as change in distance from Earth to sun would be negligible). The reason the sun's apparent size changes is due to light diffraction. Have you ever wondered why when driving at night, it is difficult to tell the distance of incoming cars by their headlights? It's the same phenomena. The further the car is away, the more the light from the headlights refracts, making the car/light appear closer than it is, and making it difficult to gauge it's true distance.

that's really a lot of contradictions to FE and all perfectly agreeing with the standard model. but i'll just count it as one.
here's another:

If you're honest, there are problems with both models. We can't explain everything.

as the sun rose it shown light on the bottom of the clouds higher ((angularly)) in the sky. this is '

flat out' impossible in any FE model.

Not sure. But if the sun were as far away as claimed by ball-Earthers, those light rays should be coming in parallel to each other, not at every angle in order to light the ground and what appears to be the underside of those clouds. This alone shows the sun is much closer and smaller than heliocentrists claim, so is evidence against heliocentrism.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

it doesn't.

Isaiah 40:22 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:

Circles are flat.

 

[posthuman]

Yeah. But not for as long as you.

It's interesting to note that there would appear to be insufficient evidence here on Earth, so as to invoke the motions of the Heavenly bodies, for globalists to try to prove the Earth's shape to be globular. I agree that stars move in circular paths about Polaris. If the Earth is a ball, rotating about the sun, why does Polaris maintain its fixed position, irrespective of one's latitude? It should only appear fixed at the very North, if the motion of the stars is due to Earth's rotation.

Good argument. The night stars one can see must therefore be closer than the sun (at night), unless there is a property of star-light we are not considering. During the day, the sun's light drowns out the stars, but as the sun moves farther away, the stars in the viewer's visual range (i.e. due to distance limits of light) can be seen.

The apparent size changes of the sun during the day is also opposite ball-Earth predictions, which would require the sun maintain roughly the same size throughout the day (as change in distance from Earth to sun would be negligible). The reason the sun's apparent size changes is due to light diffraction. Have you ever wondered why when driving at night, it is difficult to tell the distance of incoming cars by their headlights? It's the same phenomena. The further the car is away, the more the light from the headlights refracts, making the car/light appear closer than it is, and making it difficult to gauge it's true distance.

If you're honest, there are problems with both models. We can't explain everything.

Not sure. But if the sun were as far away as claimed by ball-Earthers, those light rays should be coming in parallel to each other, not at every angle in order to light the ground and what appears to be the underside of those clouds. This alone shows the sun is much closer and smaller than heliocentrists claim, so is evidence against heliocentrism.

false, false, false, and false.

 

[posthuman]

Isaiah 40:22 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:

Circles are flat.

the universe is not 2d.

the projection of a sphere in 2d is a circle.

the word חוּג means vault, compass or horizon -- see Job 22:14

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

the universe is not 2d.

the projection of a sphere in 2d is a circle.

the word חוּג means vault, compass or horizon -- see Job 22:14

Different context, different word. Circle means circle.

 

[Dino246]

I agree that stars move in circular paths about Polaris. If the Earth is a ball, rotating about the sun, why does Polaris maintain its fixed position, irrespective of one's latitude? It should only appear fixed at the very North, if the motion of the stars is due to Earth's rotation.

Wrong. Polaris is almost exactly directly "up" from the North Pole. That means that while the Earth rotates, Polaris remains at the same angular elevation, which is roughly equal to one's latitude in the Northern hemisphere. It can't be seen from the Southern hemisphere, which also refutes the flat earth hypothesis.

The apparent size changes of the sun during the day is also opposite ball-Earth predictions, which would require the sun maintain roughly the same size throughout the day (as change in distance from Earth to sun would be negligible). The reason the sun's apparent size changes is due to light diffraction.

Wrong. The sun's apparent size is due to perception. When the sun is low on the horizon, there are more objects in one's field of view with which to compare it. When it is high, there are fewer. However, if you were to measure the size throughout the say, you would find it consistent. The same happens with the moon, and it is much more easily observable. Try it on the next full moon.

Not sure. But if the sun were as far away as claimed by ball-Earthers, those light rays should be coming in parallel to each other, not at every angle in order to light the ground and what appears to be the underside of those clouds. This alone shows the sun is much closer and smaller than heliocentrists claim, so is evidence against heliocentrism.

Wrong. The sun's rays are essentially parallel (not exactly, but far less than one degree of diversion). Light on the underside of the clouds is absolutely impossible with the flat earth you espouse, and entirely possible with a ball earth.

 

[posthuman]

Whoever corrects a mocker is asking for insult;
whoever reproves a wicked person receives abuse. ​

(Proverbs 9:7) ​

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Wrong. Polaris is almost exactly directly "up" from the North Pole. That means that while the Earth rotates, Polaris remains at the same angular elevation, which is roughly equal to one's latitude in the Northern hemisphere. It can't be seen from the Southern hemisphere, which also refutes the flat earth hypothesis.

Think about this. If the stars are not actually moving, but appear to be moving by the Earth's rotation... Then all the stars, even Polaris, would appear to be moving in either an elliptical, or partial eliptical manner. The only exception to this would be if one were directly underneath Polaris, in which case, it would appear stationary.

Also note that Polaris has been seen from the Southern hemisphere on occasion.

Wrong. The sun's apparent size is due to perception. When the sun is low on the horizon, there are more objects in one's field of view with which to compare it. When it is high, there are fewer. However, if you were to measure the size throughout the say, you would find it consistent. The same happens with the moon, and it is much more easily observable. Try it on the next full moon.

I'm fairly certain this is wrong, but will endeavour to offer evidence in future to refute your argument. Whether correct or incorrect, it is most certainly true that light diffracts, to make it very difficult to determine the distance of a light by its relative size, particularly at night.

Wrong. The sun's rays are essentially parallel (not exactly, but far less than one degree of diversion). Light on the underside of the clouds is absolutely impossible with the flat earth you espouse, and entirely possible with a ball earth.

Just look up!