Is The Earth Flat Or Round?

  • 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.

Is The Earth Flat Or Round?


  • Total voters
    103

Papermonkey

Active member
Dec 2, 2022
724
257
43
I have yet to see pictures taken that show the earth is a globe, but let me just preface that with a picture is worth a thousand words, and sometimes people just look at things differently.

View attachment 246690

Is this a bunny or a duck? It's called perspective.

I agree that flat earth makes about as much sense as the sun centered universe, both are questionable.
OK. Going from the point of perspective with regard to the rendering, be it rabbit or duck, neither. And this is I think relative to the FE perspective.
A rabbits ears even in profile do not appear on the rabbits head even from a side view the way that sketch presumed to imply.

Nor is a ducks beak similar to that. Not even in a pencil or black pen rendering. Because the dimensional shape of an actual duck beak is incongruent to that in the sketch.

Speaking of perspective.😉🦆🐇


 

RaceRunner

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2022
1,576
289
83
OK. Going from the point of perspective with regard to the rendering, be it rabbit or duck, neither. And this is I think relative to the FE perspective.
A rabbits ears even in profile do not appear on the rabbits head even from a side view the way that sketch presumed to imply.

Nor is a ducks beak similar to that. Not even in a pencil or black pen rendering. Because the dimensional shape of an actual duck beak is incongruent to that in the sketch.

Speaking of perspective.😉🦆🐇


If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point. :love::love::love::love::love::love::love:
 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,903
1,495
113
The “geostationary communications satellite” was first created by Freemason science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and supposedly became science-fact just a decade later. Before this, radio, television, and navigation systems like LORAN and DECCA were already well-established and worked fine using only ground-based technologies. Nowadays huge fibre-optics cables connect the internet across oceans, gigantic cell towers triangulate GPS signals, and ionospheric propagation allows radio waves to be bounced all without the aid of the science-fiction best-seller known as “satellites.”

View attachment 246692

Satellites are allegedly floating around in the thermosphere where temperatures are claimed to be upwards of 4,530 degrees Fahrenheit. The metals used in satellites, however, such as aluminum, gold and titanium have melting points of 1,221, 1,948, and 3,034 degrees respectively, all far lower than they could possibly handle.

View attachment 246693

So-called “satellite” phones have been found to have reception problems in countries like Kazakhstan with very few cell phone towers. If the Earth were a ball with 20,000+ satellites surrounding, such blackouts should not regularly occur in any rural countryside areas.

So-called “satellite” TV dishes are almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle towards the nearest ground-based repeater tower. If TV antennae were actually picking up signals from satellites 100+ miles in space, most TV dishes should be pointing more or less straight up to the sky. The fact that “satellite” dishes are never pointing straight up and almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle proves they are picking up ground-based tower signals and not “outer-space satellites.”

View attachment 246694

People even claim to see satellites with their naked eyes, but this is ridiculous considering they are smaller than a bus and allegedly 100+ miles away; It is impossible to see anything so small that far away. Even using telescopes, no one claims to discern the shape of satellites but rather describes seeing passing moving lights, which could easily be any number of things from airplanes to drones to shooting stars or other unidentified flying objects.

NASA claims there are upwards of 20,000 satellites floating around Earth’s upper-atmosphere sending us radio, television, GPS, and taking pictures of the planet. All these supposed satellite pictures, however, are admittedly “composite images, edited in photoshop!” They claim to receive “ribbons of imagery” from satellites which must then be spliced together to create composite images of the Earth, all of which are clearly CGI and not photographs. If Earth were truly a ball with 20,000 satellites orbiting, it would be a simple matter to mount a camera and take some real photographs. The fact that no real satellite photographs of the supposed ball Earth exist in favor of NASA’s “ribbons of composite CG imagery,” is further proof we are not being told the truth.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Nice reply!

I also heard it said, that the signals are being bounced off of the glass ceiling, as well as radar signals. Also, heard that maybe the space satellites are only at the equator, and North & South poles. This is just speculation, but it sounds possible.

To be honest, I don't think his question was a literal one about how satellites work, but more of a question on how do satellites, boats, and planes go across a flat earth (when it's really a globe), or if you even believe that's possible. "If you don't believe it's possible, how do satellites work?" So, since you answered the satellite question, get ready for follow up questions regarding planes and boats. This is just a guess. It's more to baffle the minds of flat earthers.

You see, if the earth is flat, than it's impossible for satellites, boats, and planes to go across the earth........And we all know those satellites are orbiting. (This is what I think the intention of his questions were driving at, but correct me if I'm wrong. lol)
 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,903
1,495
113
If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point. :love::love::love::love::love::love::love:

I was gonna say the earth looked stationary, while he was waiting to jump, but I think the video was posted to show that earth is a globe. lol

I just might have to reply to that. lol

For the record, I think the Heliocentric Model failed the Bible verse test, but that's just another perspective most won't agree with.
 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,903
1,495
113
OK. Going from the point of perspective with regard to the rendering, be it rabbit or duck, neither. And this is I think relative to the FE perspective.
A rabbits ears even in profile do not appear on the rabbits head even from a side view the way that sketch presumed to imply.

Nor is a ducks beak similar to that. Not even in a pencil or black pen rendering. Because the dimensional shape of an actual duck beak is incongruent to that in the sketch.

Speaking of perspective.😉🦆🐇



Here is a concave/convex perspective training video.


 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,903
1,495
113
You believe the Earth is flat?

P. S Love the sheep astronaut icon. 😆

What sheep astronaut icon?

I'm a caveman. I feel like Dino or a broken record player, repeating the same thing over and over. "Reversal of proof" or something like this. lol

Click on the link below regarding a concave hollow earth. For the record, I have posted this probably 5 times already. lol

https://christianchat.com/conspiracy-corruption-discussion-forum/concave-hollow-earth-theory.198187/
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
5,791
1,069
113
Oregon
cfbac.org
.
This shows the wobble of the round earth.

The Earth's spin axis changes position relative to the poles less than 50 feet
per year; which is practically imperceptible except by careful measurements.
I suspect the pictures in post No. 2646 depict seasonal changes in the Sun's
apparent location due to the inclination of the Earth's axis rather than its wobble.
_
 

Papermonkey

Active member
Dec 2, 2022
724
257
43
If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point. :love::love::love::love::love::love::love:
:love:
https://flatearth.ws/felix-baumgartner


Felix Baumgartner and Red Bull Stratos
[Cut]Flat-Earthers questioned that if the Earth is rotating, then why Felix jumped straight down to the same location? First, Felix still retained the inertia he had when he was still standing on the surface. And second, he did not jump straight down to the same location. He went up 39 km and landed 37 km away due to various factors, including the Coriolis effect from Earth’s rotation.
 

Papermonkey

Active member
Dec 2, 2022
724
257
43
What sheep astronaut icon?
The sheep icon that appears in the video still in your post. To the left of the video title.

I'm a caveman. I feel like Dino or a broken record player, repeating the same thing over and over. "Reversal of proof" or something like this. lol

Click on the link below regarding a concave hollow earth. For the record, I have posted this probably 5 times already. lol

https://christianchat.com/conspiracy-corruption-discussion-forum/concave-hollow-earth-theory.198187/
Thank you. I haven't read that thread.
Do you answer my question there?
 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,903
1,495
113
The sheep icon that appears in the video still in your post. To the left of the video title.


Thank you. I haven't read that thread.
Do you answer my question there?

Ah thanks, that little sheep icon is perfect.

Only one way to find out..... :)
 

Papermonkey

Active member
Dec 2, 2022
724
257
43
:love:
https://flatearth.ws/felix-baumgartner


Felix Baumgartner and Red Bull Stratos
[Cut]Flat-Earthers questioned that if the Earth is rotating, then why Felix jumped straight down to the same location? First, Felix still retained the inertia he had when he was still standing on the surface. And second, he did not jump straight down to the same location. He went up 39 km and landed 37 km away due to various factors, including the Coriolis effect from Earth’s rotation.
I should add this for clarity for the above snippet.


https://scijinks.gov/coriolis/
Put simply, the Coriolis Effect makes things (like planes or currents of air) traveling long distances around Earth appear to move at a curve as opposed to a straight line.
 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,903
1,495
113
:love:
https://flatearth.ws/felix-baumgartner


Felix Baumgartner and Red Bull Stratos
[Cut]Flat-Earthers questioned that if the Earth is rotating, then why Felix jumped straight down to the same location? First, Felix still retained the inertia he had when he was still standing on the surface. And second, he did not jump straight down to the same location. He went up 39 km and landed 37 km away due to various factors, including the Coriolis effect from Earth’s rotation.

I did the math by calculating the time he left the balloon, to the time he landed, and counted 3 minutes and 35 seconds. I used three minutes for a rough estimate to calculate JUST the spinning of the earth, and came up with 50 miles, which about 50% less distance than the dare devil went.

Now let's go with orbiting speed of about 66,600 mph with just three minutes of landing time, that came up with 3,330 miles. So, let's just round down and say, there is about 3,000 miles of lost mileage from jump to landing.

Does this sound reasonable? Please check my math.

I already know the answer though, it's because he was synchronized by gravity.

So, was is he synchronized by gravity, or was he not?!?! I'm curious to find this answer. At what point was he locked to gravity and what point was he outside of gravity.

Do we have the wind speeds of the day, direction, speed of the fall, altitude of balloon, and drag of man falling in space suit?

The conclusions are entirely unverifiable in my mind, even the photo says, "some footage is from previous attempts", or something like this. It could be copied and pasted, edited, slowed down, and etc. Now if we had an unedited version from maybe a go pro or something, that would help.

To say, this is proof of anything, is hardly verifiable. If so, how?
 

Papermonkey

Active member
Dec 2, 2022
724
257
43
I did the math by calculating the time he left the balloon, to the time he landed, and counted 3 minutes and 35 seconds. I used three minutes for a rough estimate to calculate JUST the spinning of the earth, and came up with 50 miles, which about 50% less distance than the dare devil went.

Now let's go with orbiting speed of about 66,600 mph with just three minutes of landing time, that came up with 3,330 miles. So, let's just round down and say, there is about 3,000 miles of lost mileage from jump to landing.

Does this sound reasonable? Please check my math.

I already know the answer though, it's because he was synchronized by gravity.

So, was is he synchronized by gravity, or was he not?!?! I'm curious to find this answer. At what point was he locked to gravity and what point was he outside of gravity.

Do we have the wind speeds of the day, direction, speed of the fall, altitude of balloon, and drag of man falling in space suit?

The conclusions are entirely unverifiable in my mind, even the photo says, "some footage is from previous attempts", or something like this. It could be copied and pasted, edited, slowed down, and etc. Now if we had an unedited version from maybe a go pro or something, that would help.

To say, this is proof of anything, is hardly verifiable. If so, how?
Mr. Bumgartner was wearing a camera during the jump.

The claim of different footage used is one of the dismissive FE's used to discount the jump.
However the jump did not incorporate different footage into coverage of the actual jump.

Cut from the prior linked article @ https://flatearth.ws/felix-baumgartner
Before Felix performed the jump, he did test runs twice, using a different module. Flat Earthers identified several differences from the different footage of the drop and concluded it was a sloppy manipulation. In reality, there were two modules, one for the test jumps, and the other for the actual record-breaking jump. From the published videos, the entire Earth’s surface visible to Felix was all land, and no ocean was in sight. Flat-Earthers questioned it: if Felix jumped from space, then Earth’s ocean around the US should be visible. In reality, Felix jumped from merely 39 km, not nearly high enough to call it “space.” From such an altitude above Roswell, NM, the ocean should not be visible, consistent with the published videos.
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
5,791
1,069
113
Oregon
cfbac.org
.
Now let's go with orbiting speed of about 66,600 mph with just three
minutes of landing time, that came up with 3,330 miles. So, let's just round
down and say, there is about 3,000 miles of lost mileage from jump to
landing. Does this sound reasonable? Please check my math

The Cariolis effect is relative to the Earth's spin rather than its flight in orbit.
_
 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,903
1,495
113
Mr. Bumgartner was wearing a camera during the jump.

The claim of different footage used is one of the dismissive FE's used to discount the jump.
However the jump did not incorporate different footage into coverage of the actual jump.

Cut from the prior linked article @ https://flatearth.ws/felix-baumgartner
Before Felix performed the jump, he did test runs twice, using a different module. Flat Earthers identified several differences from the different footage of the drop and concluded it was a sloppy manipulation. In reality, there were two modules, one for the test jumps, and the other for the actual record-breaking jump. From the published videos, the entire Earth’s surface visible to Felix was all land, and no ocean was in sight. Flat-Earthers questioned it: if Felix jumped from space, then Earth’s ocean around the US should be visible. In reality, Felix jumped from merely 39 km, not nearly high enough to call it “space.” From such an altitude above Roswell, NM, the ocean should not be visible, consistent with the published videos.
Well, I think this thread is done, or least is done as far as the Bible Study goes.

I don't understand your point of posting this video. Maybe it belongs in the extreme sports thread.

In other words, what's your point man? lol

Is this the time to start proving the sun centered universe wrong, without using the Bible?
 

Papermonkey

Active member
Dec 2, 2022
724
257
43
Well, I think this thread is done, or least is done as far as the Bible Study goes.

I don't understand your point of posting this video. Maybe it belongs in the extreme sports thread.

In other words, what's your point man? lol

Is this the time to start proving the sun centered universe wrong, without using the Bible?
That's funny. Thank you.
 

Gideon300

Well-known member
Mar 18, 2021
5,300
3,129
113
I will just spell it out, since I don't know how else to put it.

There seems to be verifiable evidence that the faster a plane flies, the higher the nose must pitch up. I won't ask you to verify this, or confirm it, but I have already stated the example two times. So, you can dismiss this again, it won't bother me none, but this is the point I wanted you to understand.

If the earth is convex, like the Heliocentric model proclaims, planes would need to be angled downward, the faster they go, or else they would gaining altitude.

I will use pictures to help illustrate the point. Want to stay with the Biblical theme for a little bit.


View attachment 246663

This is a plane taking off, notice how far the nose is angled up?!?!

View attachment 246664

This is a plane landing, notice how far the nose is angled down?

View attachment 246665

This is a plane losing altitude, by pointing it's nose down. It's still airborne some how!! lol

View attachment 246666 SR 71 taking off.
I have neither the time or the inclination to teach you the principles of flight. However, of course an aircraft remains airborne when the nose is pitched down. The wing is designed exactly that way. Pilots also reduce power to ensure that the descent is controlled. Otherwise they will fly into the ground. Like I've said, it is the airflow over the wing that matters. That will vary according to speed and rate of ascent or descent.

The earth's circumference is 40,000 km, give or take. The normal height for commercial aircraft is around 9 km. For sure the earth is a globe. However, from an aircraft's point of view, the curvature is minimal. It is just visible from 9 km. Few people can see it from an aircraft because the field of view is too narrow.
 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,903
1,495
113
I have neither the time or the inclination to teach you the principles of flight. However, of course an aircraft remains airborne when the nose is pitched down. The wing is designed exactly that way. Pilots also reduce power to ensure that the descent is controlled. Otherwise they will fly into the ground. Like I've said, it is the airflow over the wing that matters. That will vary according to speed and rate of ascent or descent.

The earth's circumference is 40,000 km, give or take. The normal height for commercial aircraft is around 9 km. For sure the earth is a globe. However, from an aircraft's point of view, the curvature is minimal. It is just visible from 9 km. Few people can see it from an aircraft because the field of view is too narrow.

You can have your superior flight knowledge beliefs and your mainstream globe earth beliefs. I believe in this thing called free will, you are free to believe anything you want, and it sounds like you know for sure, so what's the point of discussing it?

It's not like any one cares what I said, I had to post my concave hollow earth thread 5 times, and people will probably ask me again. lol I get it no one is listening, but to themselves, and how they think.

I would like to see a debate between respected people of each earth shape's community; Between a concave earther, sun center universe earther, and a flat earther. Well, actually just a debate between a concave earther and mainstream science globalist. Flat earth debates are pretty sad overall, they just look completely clueless when trying to defend their beliefs.

Watch Professor Dave in any of his debates with flat earthers, and you would think it is staged. It's really bad. lol I mean these guys defending flat earth present themselves as clueless, not knowing anything, but conspiracies.

If any flat earthers think they aren't getting a fair shake with their views, let me know when a concave earther gets to goto a debate. I haven't seen it yet. I'm referring to debates on youtube...