To quote Reverend Thomas Milner, “In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them. This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845. How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost? How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine - in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks - from being ‘out of reckoning?’” The simple answer is that Earth is not a ball.
Is The Earth Flat Or Round?
- Thread starter seed_time_harvest
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This shows clearly that you are profoundly ignorant of geophysics. Please educate yourself instead of continuing in your idiocy.
.
Pictures are unreliable because they can be photo-shopped.
However, you're in luck because it's possible to use your own eyes instead of
a camera; beginning with the Earth's largest satellite: the Moon.
Also; International Space Station fly-by are predictable and can actually be
seen with the naked eye in good weather. There's web sites online that can
provide you with a listing of times and dates for your location and where up
in the sky to look.
* Don't expect the station's appearance to be detailed. The time I saw it, the
station shined like a small star. However, it's movement is very noticeable
so if you manage to spot the station, you'll know it because everything
around it will appear to be fixed.
_
Pictures are unreliable because they can be photo-shopped.
However, you're in luck because it's possible to use your own eyes instead of
a camera; beginning with the Earth's largest satellite: the Moon.
Also; International Space Station fly-by are predictable and can actually be
seen with the naked eye in good weather. There's web sites online that can
provide you with a listing of times and dates for your location and where up
in the sky to look.
* Don't expect the station's appearance to be detailed. The time I saw it, the
station shined like a small star. However, it's movement is very noticeable
so if you manage to spot the station, you'll know it because everything
around it will appear to be fixed.
_
.
The strength of gravity is relative to mass. For example: gravity tugs harder
at a grown man than it does a bug because the man's body is far more
massive than the bug's body; resulting of course in the bug weighing less
than the man; making it much easier for the bug to fly than the man. In other
words: when it comes to gravity; density is a crucial factor.
_
The strength of gravity is relative to mass. For example: gravity tugs harder
at a grown man than it does a bug because the man's body is far more
massive than the bug's body; resulting of course in the bug weighing less
than the man; making it much easier for the bug to fly than the man. In other
words: when it comes to gravity; density is a crucial factor.
_
Good! At least you watched the video - which is more than a lot of folks on here seem to be willing to do.
I can appreciate that...
Some of the stuff he posts is good - other stuff, no-so-much...
He seems to be a bit "junior" in Flat Earth knowledge/understanding - a 'newby' of sorts. (His 'zest' supports this assessment - FEers tend to go through 'stages'.) But, that is okay - he just needs to make sure that he does sufficient research on the stuff he finds before he posts it. (Not everything FEers come up with is 'solid' - I myself disagree with some of the things the F.E. community has produced/presented.)
Sometimes they "jump the gun" before having well-thought-out the "lastest new idea" they come across...
Has it ever occurred to you that the biblical description might just be [literally] true?
I understand what you are trying to say (and, how well-meaning it is); however, one thing God never does - is lie.
If God says that the earth/world is on pillars - you can bet your life, and feel comfortable doing it, that the earth/world is on pillars.
If God says that the earth/world does not move - you can bet your life, and feel comfortable doing it, that the earth/world does not move.
If God says that the sun, moon, and stars are in the same 'expanse' in which the birds fly - believe it!
If God was simply "not telling the whole story" to the 'ancients' - would there not be some semblance of similarity to what 'we' ultimately learned through 'science'?
What 'pillars' has modern science discovered the earth to be sitting on?
Even if God does not "tell the whole story" about something - He is not going to lie about whatever He does choose to tell...
Great-will-be-the-day when you learn to trust the Word of God more than you trust the 'word of man' (modern science, in this case).
You said what you said because you believed the 'word of man' when it told you that God was not "telling it like it really is" in the Bible.
I think you misunderstood what he was saying...
He meant that the atmosphere - from ground level up to some "undetermined height" (top of 'lower-atmosphere' according to the way he worded it) - the whole range - was being "dragged" by 'gravity' such that it stays in "perfect synchronization" with the earth.
This, of course, would certainly mean that the 'top' of this "range of atmosphere" would 'spin' much faster than any area between it and the ground.
In other words - the higher up, the faster it is moving to keep 'synchronization' with the point on the earth below it.
Careful, brother - lest you one day find yourself under the crosshairs of your own accusation...
Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.
From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 10,500 miles, or 143 degrees of longitude away. Factoring in the remaining degrees to 360 makes for a total distance of 26,430 miles around this particular latitude, which is over 1500 miles wider than Earth is supposed to be at the equator, and many more thousands of miles wider than it is supposed to be at such Southern latitudes.
Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.
I would be curious what you think is good...
If I lived more than a thousand or so years ago, yes, I probably would have thought it was literally true.
God absolutely does not lie, but He does relate to people in terms of their understanding.
See above. We have learned a lot about our world and the universe in which we live.
Not necessarily.
There aren't any.
Agreed. For the ancients, according to their understanding, it was true.
I trust the Word of God implicitly.
Again, God works with people according to their understanding. If the Bible had been written today, a lot of things, and a lot of things used as metaphors, would be different.
You're right, maybe I did misunderstand him. But this:
"Much faster" is a gross exaggeration. The top part of the atmosphere would be spinning a very slightly faster than the lower parts. The radius of the earth is ~4000 miles. The top of the stratosphere ranges between 12 and 31 miles. For fun, lets say it averages 20 miles high. That's .5% of the radius of the earth. Using rough numbers, if the earth is rotating 1000 mph at its equator, the top of the stratosphere would be traveling 1005 mph, which is hardly "much faster."
In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.
If Earth was a ball there are several flights in the Southern hemisphere which would have their quickest, straightest path over the Antarctic continent such as Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Instead of taking the shortest, quickest route in a straight line over Antarctica, all such flights detour all manner of directions away from Antarctica instead claiming the temperatures too cold for airplane travel! Considering the fact that there are plenty of flights to/from/over Antarctica, and NASA claims to have technology keeping them in conditions far colder (and far hotter) than any experienced on Earth, such an excuse is clearly just an excuse, and these flights aren’t made because they are impossible.
If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.
.
The radius of a circle of latitude is always shorter than the radius of a
circle of longitude because circles of longitude are north to south thus taking
into consideration the Earth's full diameter, whereas circles of latitude are
east to west, thus diminishing the Earth's diameter into smaller and smaller
circles the further one moves away from the equator. This is very obvious on
a flat-earth world map where latitude is sometimes shown as concentric
circles.
BTW: Using online calculators, I found that the shortest distance between
those two cities is in the neighborhood of 1383.8 miles +/-. Those are
smooth miles, i.e. they don't take into account the Earth's surface
irregularities.
_
The radius of a circle of latitude is always shorter than the radius of a
circle of longitude because circles of longitude are north to south thus taking
into consideration the Earth's full diameter, whereas circles of latitude are
east to west, thus diminishing the Earth's diameter into smaller and smaller
circles the further one moves away from the equator. This is very obvious on
a flat-earth world map where latitude is sometimes shown as concentric
circles.
BTW: Using online calculators, I found that the shortest distance between
those two cities is in the neighborhood of 1383.8 miles +/-. Those are
smooth miles, i.e. they don't take into account the Earth's surface
irregularities.
_
On a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.
On a ball-Earth Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aries, Argentina should be a straight shot over the Atlantic following the same line of latitude across, but instead every flight goes to connecting locations in the Northern hemisphere first, stopping over anywhere from London to Turkey to Dubai. Once again these make absolutely no sense on the globe but are completely understandable options when mapped on a flat Earth.
On a ball-Earth Johannesburg, South Africa to Sao Paolo, Brazil should be a quick straight shot along the 25th Southern latitude, but instead nearly every flight makes a re-fueling stop at the 50th degree North latitude in London first! The only reason such a ridiculous stop-over works in reality is because the Earth is flat.