No, the earth is not flat

[JStates]

Once again, you are proving there is no model. I was just about ready to pounce, but the game of keep away got me. There needs to be a working model of sunlight on the flat earth, once we have that, than we can get to work on your map.

Flat earthers need to come up with a model, or else this way of thinking isn't ready for the mainstream.

No model there can't be anything to test.

Do you feel like my questions were reasonable and sensible? I hope they were and I still rest on my verdict of the flat earthers failing to provide a working model. The NASA astronomer is correct, it doesn't make a lick of sense. That's why there isn't a model, flat earth doesn't make sense. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! ahhh

Well, if you think flat earth is being suppressed, look at the comments I got in the concave hollow earth model. Did anyone mention the movie the Matrix, time travel, king kong, or swimming airplanes? You don't know the definition of suppression. lol

Yes, I could see most people - myself included at first - didn't take a concave hollow earth seriously.

Here's the difficulty of your complaint about a model. The serious flat earth movement has only recently made a resurgence in 2012-2014. Many flat earthers are still in the stages of revisiting "what we know" to see if it's actually reasonable or not. In other words questioning consensus knowledge.

You say we don't have a model... but the concave hollow earth view doesn't either. Sure, you've got an interesting mock-up, but most of it is a globe flipped inside out. Who gatekeeps the basic maps that all of us are trying to work off of? The governments, via the space and weather agencies. Every voyage of exploration was funded, and its conclusions and data controlled, by governmental establishment. Your concave hollow earth is derivative of the globe because that's all we have been allowed to know prior to this point. So is any current flat earth representation.

The real question here is "how good of a model counts as a model?" and then there's the problem of "how do we know if it's a good model when the establishment controls the topographical/atmospheric/oceanographic/etc. data?"

Do you see what we're up against? And the concave hollow earth is in the same position, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[kinda]

Yes, I could see most people - myself included at first - didn't take a concave hollow earth seriously.

Here's the difficulty of your complaint about a model. The serious flat earth movement has only recently made a resurgence in 2012-2014. Many flat earthers are still in the stages of revisiting "what we know" to see if it's actually reasonable or not. In other words questioning consensus knowledge.

You say we don't have a model... but the concave hollow earth view doesn't either. Sure, you've got an interesting mock-up, but most of it is a globe flipped inside out. Who gatekeeps the basic maps that all of us are trying to work off of? The governments, via the space and weather agencies. Every voyage of exploration was funded, and its conclusions and data controlled, by governmental establishment. Your concave hollow earth is derivative of the globe because that's all we have been allowed to know prior to this point. So is any current flat earth representation.

The real question here is "how good of a model counts as a model?" and then there's the problem of "how do we know if it's a good model when the establishment controls the topographical/atmospheric/oceanographic/etc. data?"

Do you see what we're up against? And the concave hollow earth is in the same position, whether you want to admit it or not.

The concave hollow earth has a working model, but the guy who actually created is crazy, and blasphemous. I could of posted it, but didn't want to entertain any questions about the creator of it. lol Since you brought it up, I will see if there is one, that it doesn't actually blaspheme. The guy is nuts. I will be sure to put a header on there, if I post one of his videos.

You are right in the sense that concave hollow earth believers can just rip off the heliocentric model, and just flip it outside in. People have been benefiting from others since the beginning of time. It's how progress works in music, science, faith, math, and etc.

I don't feel sorry for you at all regarding your up hill struggle with defending the flat earth. I have been laughed in my face, mocked, and talked down to in public for even mentioning the possibility of a concave hollow earth. It didn't phase me none, because people don't understand it, if they did, they would know it's entirely possible, if not true altogether.

After 8 years you think you would have a working model, I will once again state, the reason you don't have a working model is because there is no science to back up what you believe is true. Watch the astronomers critique on the flat earth, most of things she says is true regarding the flat earth. The very fact she didn't laugh at all at the flat earth theory is respectable. I would of not been so understanding. lol

 

[posthuman]

I can make my own case well enough. But it's frustrating to me to have to redo what others have already explained much better than I can explain. I put in THOUSANDS of hours researching flat earth. Is this seriously the constraint that you will put upon me? That I have to REPRODUCE those thousands of hours of material in my own words before you will listen to them? And why would you listen to my version when someone else has done it better?

A waste of my time, but an easy ask on your part because you are sitting on your heinie doing no work whatsoever. I WORKED for the understand of the world that I have. I cannot simply impart the contents of my mind into yours if you are not willing to look into this in detail for yourself.

this is a really simple concept. linear perspective.
it doesn't take thousands of hours to draw a couple ray diagrams.
here; i made some useful ones with google drawings several years ago:










pretty simple.

i am working very long hours in the lab these days.
maybe over the weekend i will have some time, if @JStates has any geometric arguments . . ?
Rowbatham's can be discarded immediately by the observation of stars, as is readily apparent.

 

[Dino246]

I've explained this two or three times in various flat earth threads on this site now.

The sun makes a circuit over the flat earth plane, clockwise. In fact, the Earth plane probably inspired the invention of the analog clock. The Sun is the "hour hand" which makes a complete circuit once every 24 hours. So from where you are standing, you see it come in from the east and go out westward.

I'd suggest you review what "clockwise" means. You contradicted yourself in the paragraph above. From the perspective of a viewer "above" the plane of the earth, the sun would travel counterclockwise. I won't bore you with an explanation of reality though.

Why does the sun appear to rise and set? Perspective is the short answer. If you stand in a long hallway with a row of lights down the middle, there's a light above you and it's clearly above your head. But as the line of lights goes away from you, they appear to go "downwards" in your vision due to perspective. But they are all above your head.

Which explains "up" and "down" above the horizon, but does not explain "crosses the horizon" to or from invisible to visible... as I have said previously.

 

[Dino246]

At the following link, you can see an image of the Sydney (Australia) Opera House, which was build on a peninsula that juts northward into Sydney Harbour.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@-33.8566344,151.2143751,500m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-US

In this picture, you can see the sun rising toward the Southeast of the Opera House. Pay special attention to the location of the smaller building, shown here to the right of the main House. It is to the Southwest, which means this photo is taken from the Northwest of the House.



For the flat-earther, this poses an insurmountable problem, because on the North-centric flat earth, the sun can never appear Southeast of Sydney. On the real spherical earth, this is simply due to the sun peeking over the southern arc of the planet as it is tilted toward the sun between October and March.

 

[JStates]

At the following link, you can see an image of the Sydney (Australia) Opera House, which was build on a peninsula that juts northward into Sydney Harbour.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@-33.8566344,151.2143751,500m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-US

In this picture, you can see the sun rising toward the Southeast of the Opera House. Pay special attention to the location of the smaller building, shown here to the right of the main House. It is to the Southwest, which means this photo is taken from the Northwest of the House.

View attachment 234989

For the flat-earther, this poses an insurmountable problem, because on the North-centric flat earth, the sun can never appear Southeast of Sydney. On the real spherical earth, this is simply due to the sun peeking over the southern arc of the planet as it is tilted toward the sun between October and March.

That is interesting. Where is this picture from?

 

[JStates]

I'd suggest you review what "clockwise" means. You contradicted yourself in the paragraph above. From the perspective of a viewer "above" the plane of the earth, the sun would travel counterclockwise. I won't bore you with an explanation of reality though.



Which explains "up" and "down" above the horizon, but does not explain "crosses the horizon" to or from invisible to visible... as I have said previously.

Concerning clockwise, double check yourself.

Concerning crossing the horizon, I've explained this. It's a combination of the perspective (up and down) and the fading out due to the sun moving beyond the distance that its light can push through the atmospheric dust, smog, humidity to reach the viewer. The sun also changes angular size throughout the course of the day (you can find many time lapse videos of this) and there are also videos of it clearly arcing across the sky - instead of taking a straight path - as it continues on its circuit around the Earth plane.

But even more important than all this, because no matter what you believe you HAVE to believe that you cannot really trust your eyes, are the clear Scriptures on this matter. The Bible says the Sun makes a circuit, not the Earth. The Bible says that God stopped the Sun for a day, and even gives the location over which it stopped, not the Earth.

I'll point out that it is the SCRIPTURES on this topic I wanted to start with, seeing this is a CHRISTIAN forum, but so far I have gotten ZERO comments from all the Scriptures I posted in the "A Biblical Cosmology" thread.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

@Dino246

Thanks, Dino! I appreciate the "Zzz's" and you're attempting to cause me to detest my own psychology; my sense of self-worth. That's mighty "christian" of you. Note the lower-case "c".

 

[kinda]

A "geostationary satellite" is a balloon that is hanging in one spot. Others are in motion, following the circular paths of the jet streams over the flat earth disk. Others have guidance systems and propulsion. This technology is sophisticated. We're not talking hot air balloons in the lower atmosphere.

This is covered in material on this site:
https://www.theflatearthpodcast.com/must-see-videos/

You said, in another post that the flat earth model isn't a cracker, but here you say, "flat earth disk".

Needs some clarification, because the flat earth went from a flat earth disc, to a flat earth that doesn't resemble a cracker. This was in a matter a few pages.



1. Disc
2. Cracker

I request a zoomed out flat earth model to understand this flat earth, that you talk about.

[/QUOTE]

Nope, you don't understand what serious flat earthers believe. THE EARTH IS FIXED AND DOES NOT MOVE. I established this Scripturally with two full posts full of Bible verses in the "A Biblical Cosmology" thread, which no one bothered to read I guess.

And we don't believe that gravity is the upward acceleration of the Earth cracker in space. WE DON'T BELIEVE IN AN EARTH CRACKER IN SPACE. Try this:

 

[Dino246]

That is interesting. Where is this picture from?

Here's the link:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?...61ED22&selectedIndex=47&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

 

[Dino246]

@Dino246

Thanks, Dino! I appreciate the "Zzz's" and you're attempting to cause me to detest my own psychology; my sense of self-worth. That's mighty "christian" of you. Note the lower-case "c".

What do you propose as an appropriate response to whining?

 

[Dino246]

Concerning clockwise, double check yourself.

The sun passes from the East to the West over the Earth. If the North-centric flat Earth is as a clock face, the sun moves counterclockwise.

Concerning crossing the horizon, I've explained this.

You have provided an explanation that fails to account for angular velocity. The sun dips below the horizon at exactly the same rate at which it moves towards the horizon. If its disappearance were due to optical illusions, it would slow down. Further, your model cannot account for the sun illuminating the undersides of clouds after it sets (or before it rises), which it does.

But even more important than all this, because no matter what you believe you HAVE to believe that you cannot really trust your eyes, are the clear Scriptures on this matter. The Bible says the Sun makes a circuit, not the Earth. The Bible says that God stopped the Sun for a day, and even gives the location over which it stopped, not the Earth.

I'll point out that it is the SCRIPTURES on this topic I wanted to start with, seeing this is a CHRISTIAN forum, but so far I have gotten ZERO comments from all the Scriptures I posted in the "A Biblical Cosmology" thread.

Your interpretation of Scripture is not Scripture. I'm simply telling you that your interpretation is inconsistent with reality. By the way, you didn't start the thread, and you don't get to dictate the content of the conversation.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

What do you propose as an appropriate response to whining?

Why would you think that I'm whining instead of exposing who you are? You're abusive . . . and it bothers you none. That speaks of you; not me.

Edit . . . you have given out 498 "Whiney" reactions to others and what they've written. It's time to grow up.

 

[JStates]

The sun passes from the East to the West over the Earth. If the North-centric flat Earth is as a clock face, the sun moves counterclockwise.


You have provided an explanation that fails to account for angular velocity. The sun dips below the horizon at exactly the same rate at which it moves towards the horizon. If its disappearance were due to optical illusions, it would slow down. Further, your model cannot account for the sun illuminating the undersides of clouds after it sets (or before it rises), which it does.


Your interpretation of Scripture is not Scripture. I'm simply telling you that your interpretation is inconsistent with reality. By the way, you didn't start the thread, and you don't get to dictate the content of the conversation.

Look at Gleason's AE map again. Imagine it as a clock face. The sun moves in clockwise circles around the center/North pole. Which would mean it approaches from the east, passes by, and leaves to the west.

As for the "A Biblical Cosmology" thread, I DID create that one, and it was my FIRST introduction to the topic here on CC.

 

[Dino246]

Look at Gleason's AE map again. Imagine it as a clock face. The sun moves in clockwise circles around the center/North pole. Which would mean it approaches from the east, passes by, and leaves to the west.

My apologies; you are correct on this. The map in my mind's eye was incorrect; I must be tired.

 

[JStates]

My apologies; you are correct on this. The map in my mind's eye was incorrect; I must be tired.

Yeah, I just realized that from the ground, if the sun's path was a circuit on the sky, the direction would be counterclockwise.

 

[kinda]

You said, in another post that the flat earth model isn't a cracker, but here you say, "flat earth disk".

Needs some clarification, because the flat earth went from a flat earth disc, to a flat earth that doesn't resemble a cracker. This was in a matter a few pages.

View attachment 234990 View attachment 234991

1. Disc
2. Cracker

I request a zoomed out flat earth model to understand this flat earth, that you talk about.

[/QUOTE]


Was I being ignored or just skipped over by accident?

 

[JStates]

Was I being ignored or just skipped over by accident?[/QUOTE]
Flat earth disk... by which I meant the apparent surface of the flat earth. Would have been more apparent if any of my posted links had been referenced...

Perhaps I'll just use "Earth plane" in future to avoid confusion.

 

[kinda]

Flat earth disk... by which I meant the apparent surface of the flat earth. Would have been more apparent if any of my posted links had been referenced...

Perhaps I'll just use "Earth plane" in future to avoid confusion.

I'm more confused. Earth plane? I thought you said, it's stationary?

It's a non-flying flat earth disc plane, that doesn't look like a cracker?!?! Your telling me this is NOT confusing?!?!

That's why I need a zoomed out model for clarity.

 

[JStates]

I'm more confused. Earth plane? I thought you said, it's stationary?

It's a non-flying flat earth disc plane, that doesn't look like a cracker?!?! Your telling me this is NOT confusing?!?!

That's why I need a zoomed out model for clarity.

Not an airplane, a normal plane. A flat, level surface. If the diagrams I have posted so far are inadequate, follow the link I already posted to the Flat Earth Podcast site. It's where I get this stuff anyways.