“Is water level, or is it not?” was a question once asked of an astronomer. “Practically, yes; theoretically, no,” was the reply. Now, when theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to do is to drop the theory. (It is getting too late, now, to say “So much the worse for the facts!”) To drop the theory which supposes a curved surface to standing water is to acknowledge the facts which form the basis of Zetetic philosophy. And since this will have to be done—sooner or later,—it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Flat earth debunked.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- 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.
Why square? I have a footstool that is round on top. What you imagine is ok in fairy tales, not when it comes to reality and truth.
Revelation 7:
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Nott one of your "proofs" stands up to examination and every one of them has been debunked. Keep on trying. We need a good laugh. Oh, look at a water droplet on a flat surface. It is curved.
True Fact: The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe!
Is that the flat out truth?
Yes, it's the flat-out truth. I can sing it to you a semitone lower than I type it, but I'm not sure it would reach you!
Yes, it's the flat-out truth. I can sing it to you a semitone lower than I type it, but I'm not sure it would reach you!
Sing it and I will let you know if it reaches me.
Question:
What is the geometry of this "planar earth"? And why has this planar geometry not yet been accurately surveyed?
Tetragon?
Rectangle?
Parallelogram?
Ellipse?
Circle?
What?
S
Susanna
Guest
Unfortunately there are many believing this here in Texas. I kinda get it. It’s so flat here that it makes some kind of sense lol.
The answer to your question is in the post you quoted.
Well - for one thing - it would no-doubt be really difficult to get outside the dome. (And, not sure anyone would want to - probably no air/oxygen - instant death.)
Unless you're grading on a curve.So - a 'flat' answer is not good enough for you...?
This was posted in the "Ball Earth Conundrums" thread, for which it was off topic, so I am posting it here.
Some background: a FE proponent was asked how fast the sun travels in the FE model, and his answer described teh sun traveling in a circle, the diameter of which is equal to the diameter of the earth. However... his answer is incorrect, because in the (North-centric) flat earth model, the sun would not travel at the extremity of the earth's diameter, but rather within a washer-shaped plane where the inner circle is the Tropic of Cancer and the outer circle is the Tropic of Capricorn. The outer radius of this circle is approximately 12, 600 kilometres (distance from North pole to T. of Cap), so the circumference would be ~79,100 Km. The speed of the sun at the December solstice would therefore be about 3300 Km/hr, and would vary downwards to the June solstice where it would be about 1930 Km/hr.
Here's the bigger problem with all that...
This FE model violates both the first law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of angular momentum. It violates the former because it requires a change of kinetic energy to change direction at the solstices, and the latter because with a decreasing radius and a constant mass, the sun would have to increase in velocity as the radius decreased. Further, there is no mechanism provided (FE proponents reject gravity) to explain the changes in velocity or, for that matter, of direction.
Again, the North-centric flat earth model is physically impossible.
Some background: a FE proponent was asked how fast the sun travels in the FE model, and his answer described teh sun traveling in a circle, the diameter of which is equal to the diameter of the earth. However... his answer is incorrect, because in the (North-centric) flat earth model, the sun would not travel at the extremity of the earth's diameter, but rather within a washer-shaped plane where the inner circle is the Tropic of Cancer and the outer circle is the Tropic of Capricorn. The outer radius of this circle is approximately 12, 600 kilometres (distance from North pole to T. of Cap), so the circumference would be ~79,100 Km. The speed of the sun at the December solstice would therefore be about 3300 Km/hr, and would vary downwards to the June solstice where it would be about 1930 Km/hr.
Here's the bigger problem with all that...
This FE model violates both the first law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of angular momentum. It violates the former because it requires a change of kinetic energy to change direction at the solstices, and the latter because with a decreasing radius and a constant mass, the sun would have to increase in velocity as the radius decreased. Further, there is no mechanism provided (FE proponents reject gravity) to explain the changes in velocity or, for that matter, of direction.
Again, the North-centric flat earth model is physically impossible.
You might be forgetting the flat earth science, which makes up laws, so the flat earth model can be looked as true.
If I remember correctly, Gary said, that the laws of science in the flat earth model are different, than the laws of mainstream science. I can try to dig that up, but it would take some time in an old flat earth thread.
Trying to have a conversation with flat earthers, is like arguing with children, that santa claus doesn't exist.
There is a host a videos, that professor dave explains how flat earth is impossible.
If I remember correctly, Gary said, that the laws of science in the flat earth model are different, than the laws of mainstream science. I can try to dig that up, but it would take some time in an old flat earth thread.
Trying to have a conversation with flat earthers, is like arguing with children, that santa claus doesn't exist.
There is a host a videos, that professor dave explains how flat earth is impossible.
I think the FE proponent you refer to might have been me. The reason I chose the (widely accepted) extremity of the Earth's diameter for my calculation was to give a maximum velocity, as the ball-Earther who raised the question believed the sun's velocity required for the Flat Earth explanation described would have to be outside the realms of possibility ("8 million miles per hour"). My calculation demonstrated this was clearly untrue, although I didn't want to get involved in an argument on technicalities of where exactly the sun travelled overhead. The real velocity of the sun, as you describe, is actually less than the figure I calculated (so even more within the realms of realism), as Flat Earth theory generally holds that the sun travels over the tropics.
This assertion relies on a logical fallacy. Just because we can't explain how something works in a particular manner, does not mean it does not work in that particular manner. In other words, just because you don't understand something doesn't make that something untrue. Indeed, the faster speed of the sun in the Southern Hemisphere Summer explains why it gets dark so much more quickly in the Southern Hemisphere Summer than it does in the Northern Hemisphere Summer (when the sun is travelling more slowly).