Flat earth debunked.

[kinda]

It's been done to death. Just do a search of my history. The below is one.

"Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" Circles are flat, by the way.

What reason would a Flat Earther have for believing that the moon rotates?

Yes, I appreciate that as a concave Earther, you get slightly less wrong than most other globalists.

Fair enough. Not gonna question your beliefs on doctrine, if you think God sits on a flat earth, that's entirely your view, or possibly the flat earth view.

I don't believe in a flat earth, so can't answer that question for you. Just wanted to laugh some more, because the moon rotates, as well as the sun, not to many people doubt this, your the first to mention this, so was curious. If you wanted to share how a new moon and a lunar eclipse works in a flat earth model, that would be insightful.

Your entitled to your views, but the concave hollow earth is rock solid. If you think it's wrong, or most think it's wrong, no big deal. Also, believe it or not, their are some people, who believe in the convex earth, and believe it's stationary. Malcolm Bowden to name just one.

 

[Dino246]

And, your inability to think in a Flat Earth model context is profound. (Especially since I believe you to be an intelligent person.)

Still? You have not learned how to look at the Flat Earth model from within the context of the Flat Earth model?

Because I reject the North-centric flat Earth model on the basis of real-world observations, and no other FE model has been proposed, there is no context from within which I can look at a (non-existent) flat-Earth model. To believe otherwise would be to engage in circular reasoning.

The determinations of Eratosthenes were based on a false assumption - that the angle of the light rays targeting the well and the pole were parallel to each other.

You see - he was working on the assumption that the earth was a sphere.

The same observations exist for the Flat Earth model. The sun can be above the well and cast a shadow from the pole. But, the light rays to the two targets are not parallel.

Eratosthenes may have made an assumption, but that assumption has not been proven false.

 

[kinda]

Eratosthenes may have made an assumption, but that assumption has not been proven false.

Google Earth seems to have adopted this assumption, that the earth is a sphere. Who here hasn't used Google Earth, or Google Maps, and confirmed it's accuracy?

Also, their is a movie about a man finding his family, by using Google Earth.

This guy Eratosthenes, had I giant brain.

 

[kinda]

It's been done to death. Just do a search of my history. The below is one.

"Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" Circles are flat, by the way.

What reason would a Flat Earther have for believing that the moon rotates?

Yes, I appreciate that as a concave Earther, you get slightly less wrong than most other globalists.

As for as another viewpoint on Isaiah 40:22....

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:


What is a sphere?

"A sphere is a geometrical object that is a three-dimensional analogue to a two-dimensional circle."

If one believed in a two-dimensional world, your flat earth would make sense, but unfortunately for most of the modern world, we believe in a 3 dimensional world. Our loss! I would propose to you that the Bible was intended to be taught to an audience, who believed in a 3-demensional world. There are possibly more dimensions, than three, but that's another topic.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

You're misapplying the burden of proof again. The burden of proof is not on Flat Earthers to prove the Earth is flat. It is on NASA (or the other space agencies you think are somehow more reputable), to provide convincing evidence of the contrary. Photographs can indeed be part of that proof, but it's not on me to prove that the photographs are fake, it is on NASA or your preferred space agency to demonstrate they've actually done what they've claimed. These organisations received billions of dollars, and all they come up with are Computer Generated Images and a handful of photographs that people like me can see are faked? This is no proof of Heliocentricity or Ball-Earth theory in the least.

Anybody as UTTERLY SO FAR OUT OF TOUCH with reality doesn't deserve any further discussion.

Good bye

 

[Gojira]

Nope. Exactly the opposite. Those who believe the Earth is flat tell people to trust their eyes (and other senses) a.k.a. science. It is the Heliocentrists who seem intent on encouraging others to disbelieve what their senses tell them. As can be seen in the examples below.

Why does the Earth seem motionless?
Flat Earther: Because it is motionless.
Globalist: It only seems motionless because it's spinning at a perfectly uniform speed with no acceleration or deceleration ever and the atmosphere is magically velcroed to it. Actually the Earth is spinning on it's axis at 1,000 mph, rotating around the Sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the Milky Way at 500,000 mph and shooting through the known Universe at 67,000,000 mph. We don't feel even the slightest bit of this motion because all the centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces somehow perfectly cancel out.

Why do the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size?
Flat Earther: Because they are the same size.
Globalist: They only appear to be the same size because of an incredibly perfect parallax perspective from Earth. Actually the Sun is 1.392x10^6 km in diameter and 1.496x10^8 km from Earth. The Moon is 3474 km in diameter and 384,403 km from the Earth. And these just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to falsely perceive them as being the same size.

Why do the Sun, Moon, and Stars all appear to revolve around a stationary Earth?
Flat Earther: Because they do.
Globalist: The Moon does revolve around the Earth, but the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, and all the stars only seem to revolve around the Earth because the Earth itself is spinning beneath your feet!

Why do we never see the rotation of the Moon?
Flat Earther: Because it doesn't rotate.
Globalist: Both the Moon and the Earth are actually rotating but they are doing so in such a way that from our perspective it seems that neither are. The Earth is spinning East to West at 1,000 mph while orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph. The Moon is spinning West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting the Earth at 2,288 mph. These motions/speeds perfectly cancel out so that the Moon always only shows us one side.

Why do the stars appear to be fixed along a celestial hemisphere?
Flat Earther: Because they are.
Globalist: The stars only appear to be fixed along a celestial hemisphere because they are so incredibly far away. Even after hundreds of millions of miles of our (supposed) orbit around the Sun, the stars appear in the exact same positions at the exact same meridian times because they are many "light-years" away. A light-year is approximately 6 TRILLION miles away and that is why they falsely seem fixed from our faulty perspective.

Man dude, keep it coming. I got some crap going on in my life right now, and you are quite the distraction.

Thanks!!

 

[Gojira]

Anybody as UTTERLY SO FAR OUT OF TOUCH with reality doesn't deserve any further discussion.

Good bye

No! Have fun with him. He's funny.

 

[Billyd]

No! Have fun with him. He's funny.

He's an example of the quality of the STEM education our children are receiving today. He really needs to forget this garbage that he spouts, and get back to elementary school and start over, probably around kindergarten.

 

[Zandar]

: Nikola Tesla said: "Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore it has no edge.

 

[Billyd]

: Nikola Tesla said: "Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore it has no edge.

Description of the book this quote is from.

"Title, Earth Is a Realm It Is Not a Planet - Nicola Tesla: Blank Lined Motivational Inspirational Quote Journal"

 

[Zandar]

I wish I had some of his research to read through. I've heard he said he sent out radio waves trying to find the pillars of the earth and they answered him back. He also said the moon's craters were not made by asteroids but rather electricity.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

No! Have fun with him. He's funny.

That level of gross ignorance is outside my "Tolerance zone".

 

[Gideon300]

It seems that some say you can see curvature while standing on the beach looking out at the ocean. Others say 'No - but you see curvature during a commercial plane flight'. Still others say 'No - that is not high enough - you must be much higher'.

I wish the Ball Earth folks would get their story straight and tell us just-exactly-and-precisely how high one can-and-cannot see curvature.

Concorde flew at 70,000 feet. It had to in order to go supersonic. If just one person observed ther curvature of the earth, your theory is disproven. As it happens, 2.5 million passengers flew on BA Concorde. I don't know about Air France. Now some passengers were regular so it was not 2.5 million different people. However, there are certainly enough eye witnesses to make a mockery of Flerfer claims. It should be obvious that the curvature of the earth is more evident as height increases. It can be seen from about 35,000 feet. However, the field of view from an aircraft is limited. Passengers can only see a very small segment of the curve. When you get to 70,000 feet, the curvature is much more obvious.

Prove the earth is flat. You can't because it is not.

 

[GaryA]

Before I was convinced of God's flat Earth, I did actually sincerely pray for this. The scriptures seemed to imply Earth was flat, but it seemed (to me at the time) scientifically untenable. When I asked for God's intervention and wisdom, and approached the subject with an open mind, I became more and more convinced of the truth.

As you were more and more willing to trust Him for the truth, He more and more opened your eyes to it. God helped you to see the truth because you were willing to "let go" of the conventional worldly wisdom and trust in Him.

Which is perhaps why the intellectual approach to Flat Earth isn't always successful? The issue is spiritual as well as physical?

For a Christian today, I believe it may be at least partially a matter of faith - one has to be willing to swallow their pride and humble themselves before God and admit to Him (and themselves) that - not only can they be deceived - but, that they [realize that they] have been deceived. It is about letting God "unbrainwash" them - believing that He can and will if they ask Him sincerely for knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. It is about having a true desire to know the truth that outweighs any sense of pride or "uncomfortable feeling" that they may experience when faced with the issue.

 

[GaryA]

Eratosthenes may have made an assumption, but that assumption has not been proven false.

Neither has it been proven true. And, it is erroneous to use such a thing as the basis of something else without first proving that it is true. Therefore, the determinations of Eratosthenes based on this assumption cannot properly be declared to be true.

 

[GaryA]

I would propose to you that the Bible was intended to be taught to an audience, who believed in a 3-demensional world.

I would propose to you that the Bible was intended to be taught to an audience who would believe what it [really, actually] says without trying to twist it around conventional worldly wisdom and every other ungodly imaginable thing.

 

[kinda]

I would propose to you that the Bible was intended to be taught to an audience who would believe what it [really, actually] says without trying to twist it around conventional worldly wisdom and every other ungodly imaginable thing.

Let me know when you have a model of your flat earth with a scale, shows sunrise, sunsets, and phases of the moon. Until then, I would like to end all discussions of the flat earth, with flat earthers Thank You! I will not be participating, until a model is produced. This thread is anti-flat earth, so I like this one.

You can believe in a 2 dimensional earth if you want, you can believe it's Biblical, but please don't lecture me on how to interpret the Bible. Anyone who says, the flat earth is Biblical, would be my que to not listen. Thanks!


What is the definition of a circle?


"A circle is defined as a two-dimensional figure, which is round in shape where all the points on the surface of the circle are equidistant from the center point is called “P”. The distance from point P to the surface of the circle is called the radius of the circle (R)."

 

[Cameron143]

Let me know when you have a model of your flat earth with a scale, shows sunrise, sunsets, and phases of the moon. Until then, I would like to end all discussions of the flat earth, with flat earthers Thank You! I will not be participating, until a model is produced. This thread is anti-flat earth, so I like this one.

You can believe in a 2 dimensional earth if you want, you can believe it's Biblical, but please don't lecture me on how to interpret the Bible. Anyone who says, the flat earth is Biblical, would be my que to not listen. Thanks!


What is the definition of a circle?


"A circle is defined as a two-dimensional figure, which is round in shape where all the points on the surface of the circle are equidistant from the center point is called “P”. The distance from point P to the surface of the circle is called the radius of the circle (R)."

Sounds like a P R problem.

 

[kinda]

Sounds like a P R problem.

How so?

 

[kinda]

Anyone who says, I seen the curvature of the earth, so I have a conclusion.

Let me just through this out there....

I seen some rail road tracks and they meet at the end. Look, I have proof.



Just making a point.