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.
Also just the fact that rather than debate, shills will resort to getting thread discussions closed. They lose in debates (repeating the same stuff over and over again) and getting rebutted each time, then when it's obvious to unbiased onlookers what is going on, resort to the alternative tactic of censorship. The truth isn't so scared of being usurped that it goes around censoring falsehoods - rather it exposes them.
-
1
- Show all
Oh how quickly some forget.
https://christianchat.com/conspirac...at-earth-debunked.209031/page-17#post-5061658
https://christianchat.com/conspirac...at-earth-debunked.209031/page-17#post-5061658
You respond THREE MONTHS LATER to a post WITHOUT QUOTING IT and expect me to recall the details? Get real.
As for the motions I described, they are perfectly explained in the heliocentric model, but your FE mode can’t even make an educated guess because they are impossible in your world. Your claim that they are ‘poorly understood’ is bafflegab for ‘I have no idea what I’m talking about’.
As for your closing snipe, you haven’t ‘beaten’ me even once, let alone ‘every time’.
As for the motions I described, they are perfectly explained in the heliocentric model, but your FE mode can’t even make an educated guess because they are impossible in your world. Your claim that they are ‘poorly understood’ is bafflegab for ‘I have no idea what I’m talking about’.
As for your closing snipe, you haven’t ‘beaten’ me even once, let alone ‘every time’.
My problem with Flat Earth Theory is this: If the Earth is flat then that means if you place a telescope on the beach and be able to see every ship on the sea.
Because of the curvature of the Earth you can only se 11 miles (going off memory, may be off).
You cannot see every boat on the ocean with a telescope so that debunks it for me. That and I have been in a plane before and have seen the curvature of the Earth.
One more gut punch to flat earth: we have satellites(gps and otherwise) that would not operate under the physics of Flat Earth.
I do not need any more proof than that. It is 100% debunked if you consider what I have said.
Because of the curvature of the Earth you can only se 11 miles (going off memory, may be off).
You cannot see every boat on the ocean with a telescope so that debunks it for me. That and I have been in a plane before and have seen the curvature of the Earth.
One more gut punch to flat earth: we have satellites(gps and otherwise) that would not operate under the physics of Flat Earth.
I do not need any more proof than that. It is 100% debunked if you consider what I have said.
-
1
- Show all
You implied you didn't rely on the motions of the Heavenly bodies for proving the globe-Earth you push, and that I was mistaken in making this assertion about you. You were incorrect (again), and my previous post is proof of it. My claim has nothing to do with your lack of response (or otherwise) to the selected post - just is proof that you do indeed rely on this as proof of your world-view (and you appear to have forgotten - or was it deliberate deception - to have made the claim I should "distinguish between other persons well enough to track what each says and respond accordingly instead of lumping them together"?)
I consider the above the only evidence remotely justifiable to support Heliocentric theory as much as Flat Earth theory, as I haven't come across a Flat Earth or Heliocentric theory that adequately explains the motions of the Heavenly bodies, which is why I prefer to refrain from debating based on these. However, Flat Earth supporters are generally honest with respect to the lack of adequate theory for the Heavenly bodies, whereas Heliocentrists, ignorantly or deceitfully, try to explain such inconsistencies in Heliocentric theory away with inadequate, evidence-absent excuses, such as atmospheric refraction.
You have not yet posted evidence of how you have measured any curvature at any time. I consider that a defeat for ball-Earth theory. Why don't you?
I consider the above the only evidence remotely justifiable to support Heliocentric theory as much as Flat Earth theory, as I haven't come across a Flat Earth or Heliocentric theory that adequately explains the motions of the Heavenly bodies, which is why I prefer to refrain from debating based on these. However, Flat Earth supporters are generally honest with respect to the lack of adequate theory for the Heavenly bodies, whereas Heliocentrists, ignorantly or deceitfully, try to explain such inconsistencies in Heliocentric theory away with inadequate, evidence-absent excuses, such as atmospheric refraction.
You have not yet posted evidence of how you have measured any curvature at any time. I consider that a defeat for ball-Earth theory. Why don't you?
You are misunderstanding perspective. You can't see every ship on the sea because:
1) The atmosphere is not transparent - enough atmosphere will prevent you seeing ships beyond a certain point - think the colour of blue mountains in the distance - the mountains are not actually blue, but begin to get the blue hue as they start to be hidden by the atmosphere with enough distance;
2) Perspective - at great distances, the ships at sea will become very small, and relatively small but close waves will be massive in comparison. Hold a small coin to your eye - the coin is only small, but it is able to shield from vision a large object at a distance, such as a mountain or elephant. The same applies to oceans and ships. I mentioned one coin. Now imagine many such coins (the waves of the sea), which would certainly shield the furthest ships from view, if not already obscured by atmosphere.
Ironically, it is this method that easily disproves the ball-Earth. We know from the points 1 and 2 above that we cannot see infinite distances. However, on a ball-Earth, we know that for certain distances, we should never be able to see objects of certain heights, as they would be hidden behind the curvature of the Earth (i.e. were Earth a sphere). However, the fact is, on clear days (refer to point 1 above) we can see such objects at distances beyond which the objects would be entirely hidden by Earth's curvature (given the respective heights of object and observer), were Earth a ball. Ergo, Earth is flat. Note that such measurements must be taken on water, as only water seeks its own level (land may be subject to unevenness and debate about how level it truly is).
Refer to the points above. Note also that a boat that appears to have disappeared "over the horizon" (i.e. to a Heliocentrist) can indeed be brought back into view by a telescope. Obviously, there is a limit to such a telescope's ability due to the telescope's magnification, and point 1 above.
Most seasoned Heliocentrists will admit that the curvature of the Earth cannot be seen from a plane. Although not a Heliocentrist, I myself can attest to this fact.
Prove it. Are they really satellites, or weather balloons? If satellites, why are there only ever Computer Generated Images (CGIs) and not actually photographs of real satellites orbiting in space or the sky?
Your arguments were easily rebutted. I hope you can abandon Heliocentric theory now.
1) The atmosphere is not transparent - enough atmosphere will prevent you seeing ships beyond a certain point - think the colour of blue mountains in the distance - the mountains are not actually blue, but begin to get the blue hue as they start to be hidden by the atmosphere with enough distance;
2) Perspective - at great distances, the ships at sea will become very small, and relatively small but close waves will be massive in comparison. Hold a small coin to your eye - the coin is only small, but it is able to shield from vision a large object at a distance, such as a mountain or elephant. The same applies to oceans and ships. I mentioned one coin. Now imagine many such coins (the waves of the sea), which would certainly shield the furthest ships from view, if not already obscured by atmosphere.
Ironically, it is this method that easily disproves the ball-Earth. We know from the points 1 and 2 above that we cannot see infinite distances. However, on a ball-Earth, we know that for certain distances, we should never be able to see objects of certain heights, as they would be hidden behind the curvature of the Earth (i.e. were Earth a sphere). However, the fact is, on clear days (refer to point 1 above) we can see such objects at distances beyond which the objects would be entirely hidden by Earth's curvature (given the respective heights of object and observer), were Earth a ball. Ergo, Earth is flat. Note that such measurements must be taken on water, as only water seeks its own level (land may be subject to unevenness and debate about how level it truly is).
Refer to the points above. Note also that a boat that appears to have disappeared "over the horizon" (i.e. to a Heliocentrist) can indeed be brought back into view by a telescope. Obviously, there is a limit to such a telescope's ability due to the telescope's magnification, and point 1 above.
Most seasoned Heliocentrists will admit that the curvature of the Earth cannot be seen from a plane. Although not a Heliocentrist, I myself can attest to this fact.
Prove it. Are they really satellites, or weather balloons? If satellites, why are there only ever Computer Generated Images (CGIs) and not actually photographs of real satellites orbiting in space or the sky?
I do not need any more proof than that. It is 100% debunked if you consider what I have said.
-
1
- Show all
There is a Ball Earth model explanation for this - and, I understand "how it works" in the Ball Earth model - but, since we have so many Ball Earth model physics experts on hand to explain it, I will let them explain it to you...
That is not any kind of worthwhile answer to his question.
A worthwhile answer would be to explain how - during that "rare moment of correct positioning" (when it can be seen) - that Venus can be seen at night.
The answer you gave is 100% avoidance - more than anything else it seems to be saying:
"I really have no clue; but, I want you to believe it anyway..."
That is not any kind of worthwhile answer to his question.
A worthwhile answer would be to explain how - during that "rare moment of correct positioning" (when it can be seen) - that Venus can be seen at night.
The answer you gave is 100% avoidance - more than anything else it seems to be saying:
"I really have no clue; but, I want you to believe it anyway..."
-
1
- Show all