If the Earth were flat---

[Lynx]

To answer your own question, consider what would happen and who it would affect (and, in what ways) if the whole world suddenly discovered with absolute certainty that we live in a giant terrarium.

I would find it very depressing. God doesn't have any more imagination than THIS?!

The solar system is a much more elegant way to make life in a void, not to mention being much more clever. It is also very efficient. It's certainly much better than anything we humans could have dreamed up.

 

[GaryA]

I wish someone here could have just given me a simple answer.

I did - in the form of two short videos.

Don't be afraid to watch them.

 

[GaryA]

I would find it very depressing. God doesn't have any more imagination than THIS?!

Oh, wow - I hope you have a good answer for this on Judgment Day.

The solar system is a much more elegant way to make life in a void, not to mention being much more clever. It is also very efficient. It's certainly much better than anything we humans could have dreamed up.

Just wait until you find out how backwards everything you said here really is...

The entire Ball Earth universe doesn't hold a candle to the elegance of the Flat Earth model - or how clever its operation is - or how efficient it is.

The entire Ball Earth universe was dreamed-up by men for the purpose of "hiding God" and obtaining masterful control of humanity.

(And, it worked.)

 

[Dino246]

Most if not all of your questions - and more - would be answered if you would just watch the Flat Earth Clues by Mark Sargent:

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLltxIX4B8_URNUzDE2sXctnUAEXgEDDGn

Each clue segment is short (less than 15, some less than 10 minutes) and easy to watch.

If you're going to recommend Mark Sargent, I'm going to recommend SciMan Dan. He consistently and systematically debunks Sargent's claims. If he were not also anti-Christian, I would endorse him.

 

[RolloTamasi]

If you're going to recommend Mark Sargent, I'm going to recommend SciMan Dan. He consistently and systematically debunks Sargent's claims. If he were not also anti-Christian, I would endorse him.

That should answer your claims right there.

 

[Dino246]

That should answer your claims right there.

Please explain.

 

[Lynx]

If you're going to recommend Mark Sargent, I'm going to recommend SciMan Dan. He consistently and systematically debunks Sargent's claims. If he were not also anti-Christian, I would endorse him.

Please explain.

Translation: if an atheist said the sun is shining today, some Christians would feel honor bound to prove there is no such thing as a sun, that the whole belief that there is a sun is part of a grand conspiracy.

 

[Lynx]

I did - in the form of two short videos.

Don't be afraid to watch them.

SHORT RETORT:

I ain't watching no more of your videos. Nothing personal (you don't owe me an answer at all.) I just don't want to waste the data on them any more. It's kind of weird that you keep throwing videos out instead of answers anyway.

LONG ANSWER:

I am going to have to decline to watch any more of your videos on this topic. I have limited high speed data per month and the return-on-investment I get from the megabytes I spend does not justify watching more. (But I'm not getting a bigger data plan because what I have comes at a VERY low price for what I get, so I'm sticking with what I got.) All your FE videos are the same: They put out theories about "this is what we think might be up there in the sky" with no proof at all, and they all come with the requisite "this is why we think modern scientists are either deliberately evil or idiots who are unwittingly doing satan's work."

Case in point: The video about the direction of the eclipse shadow. It proves nothing because the shadow could go any way at any speed, whether you believe FE or not. The vector of a shadow depends on the direction and velocity of the light source, the object blocking the light source and the surface against which the shadow is projected. Even with FE insisting the earth is stationary relative to the universe, y'all DO think there's another (unknown?) object blocking the sun. That's two objects in motion, both affecting the shadow's vector. It could go any direction it wants, at any speed.

And that's a few megabytes I'll never get back. Totally wasted.

I think it's kind of weird that you keep posting video links instead of just answering the questions anyway. If you know what you believe, why do you just keep saying, "watch this video" instead of giving the answer yourself? I disagree with you on a lot of things you believe, but I do notice that usually you understand what you believe and why you believe it, and you are always ready with an answer. It makes me suspect you don't really believe FE and are just playing the part for your amusement.

Of course the most likely answer is that you have talked to so many trolls that you have grown weary of answering the same questions over and over for no net benefit, so you have resorted to the video links as a quick way to get the conversation moving on to another, hopefully more useful, aspect of the topic.

Mind you, I'm not saying you OWE me a typed answer in your own words. You don't owe me anything, not even the video link. I'm just explaining why I am not going to watch any more of them.

I only get 8 gigabytes a month.
I'm not blowing any more monthly data on videos that never actually answer anything.

 

[RolloTamasi]

Please explain.

You don't understand what you said?

 

[Lynx]

I did - in the form of two short videos.

Don't be afraid to watch them.

One thing I do think is pretty cool: I can be fairly certain you will read that whole post instead of just reading a few lines at the top and getting offended.

I may think some things you believe are ludicrous, but I do respect you.

 

[Dino246]

You don't understand what you said?

Please explain your comment. I would never ask you to explain my comment.

 

[Gideon300]

The sun never appears directly overhead at any point South of the Tropic of Capricorn, about 23 degrees South. That's true regardless of the shape of the Earth.

Sydney, Australia, is at about 33.9 degrees South, ten degrees farther than the Tropic. The sun NEVER is South of Sydney. Yet there are pictures clearly showing it casting shadows Northward.

This can only happen on a ball-shaped Earth.

No amount of flat-Earth rhetoric will suffice while this situation remains unexplained.

No amount of logic, reason or evidence will convince a flat earther. It's a delusion.

 

[Gideon300]

Yes, it's really there and we can't get around it although we think we do.

That's 4 minutes of my life I'll never get back. You can fly over it. Submarines have gone under the northern ice sheet. It's not rocket surgery.

 

[GaryA]

SHORT RETORT:

I ain't watching no more of your videos. Nothing personal (you don't owe me an answer at all.) I just don't want to waste the data on them any more. It's kind of weird that you keep throwing videos out instead of answers anyway.

LONG ANSWER:

I am going to have to decline to watch any more of your videos on this topic. I have limited high speed data per month and the return-on-investment I get from the megabytes I spend does not justify watching more. (But I'm not getting a bigger data plan because what I have comes at a VERY low price for what I get, so I'm sticking with what I got.) All your FE videos are the same: They put out theories about "this is what we think might be up there in the sky" with no proof at all, and they all come with the requisite "this is why we think modern scientists are either deliberately evil or idiots who are unwittingly doing satan's work."

Case in point: The video about the direction of the eclipse shadow. It proves nothing because the shadow could go any way at any speed, whether you believe FE or not. The vector of a shadow depends on the direction and velocity of the light source, the object blocking the light source and the surface against which the shadow is projected. Even with FE insisting the earth is stationary relative to the universe, y'all DO think there's another (unknown?) object blocking the sun. That's two objects in motion, both affecting the shadow's vector. It could go any direction it wants, at any speed.

And that's a few megabytes I'll never get back. Totally wasted.

I think it's kind of weird that you keep posting video links instead of just answering the questions anyway. If you know what you believe, why do you just keep saying, "watch this video" instead of giving the answer yourself? I disagree with you on a lot of things you believe, but I do notice that usually you understand what you believe and why you believe it, and you are always ready with an answer. It makes me suspect you don't really believe FE and are just playing the part for your amusement.

Of course the most likely answer is that you have talked to so many trolls that you have grown weary of answering the same questions over and over for no net benefit, so you have resorted to the video links as a quick way to get the conversation moving on to another, hopefully more useful, aspect of the topic.

Mind you, I'm not saying you OWE me a typed answer in your own words. You don't owe me anything, not even the video link. I'm just explaining why I am not going to watch any more of them.

I only get 8 gigabytes a month.
I'm not blowing any more monthly data on videos that never actually answer anything.

One thing I do think is pretty cool: I can be fairly certain you will read that whole post instead of just reading a few lines at the top and getting offended.

I may think some things you believe are ludicrous, but I do respect you.

No, I am not offended in the slightest.

And - yes - I read the whole post.

I regret that you have the data limit to contend with. I do understand that.

The main reason for the video links is simply that I believe the visual effects add so much more to an explanation for a better understanding than does what I could put into words as a strictly textual answer.

And, it takes me a while to one-finger type my posts on this dang phone - especially since I have to constantly "fight" the software to get it typed. (This is what I have to contend with. And, it can get really frustrating.)

I desparately desire to get back on a "real" computer. (having keyboard, trackball, and full-size screen)

It has been said that most people (by far and large) would rather watch a video than read text. So, that is a second reason.

In other words, I really am trying to give you (and others) a better answer.

I actually spent 2-3 hours trying to find a good video that explained the eclipse in a FE model. I discovered that there are not that many out there. Those two videos are the best I could come up with.

For a third reason - you nailed it - I grow weary of writing long explanations that seem to only draw remarks from the hecklers and no encouragement from any who might agree. Not always, perhaps. But, as a whole - not nearly enough 'positive' feedback to make it worth it.

The absolute majority of people have no overly-severe data limits. And, for them, there is an abundance of FE videos on the internet they can watch to learn about the FE model.

I guess the 'eclipse' thing might be an exception. haha

Perhaps there are some good textual explanations out there too.

I can recommend this site:

http://www.testingtheglobe.com/

~

I thought both videos "made their point" quite well.

The first video illustrated how that it is impossible on a ball earth for the 2017 eclipse across-the-USA moon shadow to go from west to east.

The second video illustrated (albeit in a somewhat crude fashion) how an eclipse would work on the FE model.

 

[GaryA]

Yes, it's really there and we can't get around it although we think we do.

A few centuries back a group of men took a small fleet of ships (best I remember, it was not just one ship) on a voyage to go around Antarctica.

It took something like 2-3 years and over 60,000 miles to get back to the starting point.

This is recorded history.

Hmmmm...

Instead of following the outer edge of a continent, they were following the inner edge of the ice ring.

 

[GaryA]

No, I am not offended in the slightest.

And - yes - I read the whole post.

I regret that you have the data limit to contend with. I do understand that.

The main reason for the video links is simply that I believe the visual effects add so much more to an explanation for a better understanding than does what I could put into words as a strictly textual answer.

And, it takes me a while to one-finger type my posts on this dang phone - especially since I have to constantly "fight" the software to get it typed. (This is what I have to contend with. And, it can get really frustrating.)

I desparately desire to get back on a "real" computer. (having keyboard, trackball, and full-size screen)

It has been said that most people (by far and large) would rather watch a video than read text. So, that is a second reason.

In other words, I really am trying to give you (and others) a better answer.

I actually spent 2-3 hours trying to find a good video that explained the eclipse in a FE model. I discovered that there are not that many out there. Those two videos are the best I could come up with.

For a third reason - you nailed it - I grow weary of writing long explanations that seem to only draw remarks from the hecklers and no encouragement from any who might agree. Not always, perhaps. But, as a whole - not nearly enough 'positive' feedback to make it worth it.

The absolute majority of people have no overly-severe data limits. And, for them, there is an abundance of FE videos on the internet they can watch to learn about the FE model.

I guess the 'eclipse' thing might be an exception. haha

Perhaps there are some good textual explanations out there too.

I can recommend this site:

http://www.testingtheglobe.com/

~

I thought both videos "made their point" quite well.

The first video illustrated how that it is impossible on a ball earth for the 2017 eclipse across-the-USA moon shadow to go from west to east.

The second video illustrated (albeit in a somewhat crude fashion) how an eclipse would work on the FE model.

BTW - it took me about 1.5 hours to type this post.

 

[GaryA]

I can recommend this site:

http://www.testingtheglobe.com/

At least some of the stuff on this site is in both text and video form.

Here is a sample:

http://www.testingtheglobe.com/bible.html

This page is a biblical view of FE.

 

[Lynx]

And, it takes me a while to one-finger type my posts on this dang phone - especially since I have to constantly "fight" the software to get it typed. (This is what I have to contend with. And, it can get really frustrating.)

Ugh. UGH!!

Ever tried a bluetooth keyboard? They're doggone cheap these days. Some of them are actually big enough to be fairly usable.

I know, I know... off topic. But I would hate having only a phone for typing posts.

I personally like the iClever keyboard I got. A bit more expensive than the cheapest bluetooth keyboards, but foldable and the whole frame is metal.

 

[Gideon300]

The first thing you need to understand is that "the edge" is hundreds-if-not-thousands of miles beyond the ice ring.

(And, thousands is highly more likely.)

Moreover, you would run into the dome wall before reaching the edge.

To learn about what has been done, research Admiral Richard Byrd.


Who profits?

~ Satan, and the 'evil' of the earth - the whole 'ball earth' thing exists to "hide God"

~ NASA - along with everyone who benefits from their existence

~ all who benefit from ball-earth "science"

~ politicians/government - who use it against the people through psychological means of control

I am sure there is more I could say if I thought about it long enough.

To answer your own question, consider what would happen and who it would affect (and, in what ways) if the whole world suddenly discovered with absolute certainty that we live in a giant terrarium.

If we lived in giant terrarium, we would all be plants.

 

[TheLearner]

The first thing you need to understand is that "the edge" is hundreds-if-not-thousands of miles beyond the ice ring.

(And, thousands is highly more likely.)

Moreover, you would run into the dome wall before reaching the edge.

To learn about what has been done, research Admiral Richard Byrd.


Who profits?

~ Satan, and the 'evil' of the earth - the whole 'ball earth' thing exists to "hide God"

~ NASA - along with everyone who benefits from their existence

~ all who benefit from ball-earth "science"

~ politicians/government - who use it against the people through psychological means of control

I am sure there is more I could say if I thought about it long enough.

To answer your own question, consider what would happen and who it would affect (and, in what ways) if the whole world suddenly discovered with absolute certainty that we live in a giant terrarium.

If the earth was flat an ice ring could not exist except in winter. Also, in winter it would fall off the side.