(Psalms 103:5) (Is The Earth is Not a Globe or is The Earth a Globe?)

[posthuman]

Speaking of poles...





if the Earth was flat the north and south pole would both be in the same place - there would be no such thing as a working compass. north would be up and south down, or vice versa.

so the existence of compasses proves the earth isn't flat. literally trillions of fully repeatable magnetic field measurements performed daily for a thousand years are an inescapable proof.

reality:

 

[Moses_Young]

commercial flights don't cross the pole because it's not the shortest path, why would they?

flights from San Francisco to Chicago don't cross Belize. So what

It would be the shortest path were Earth a ball. Commercial flights don't shortcut across Antarctica because it's not a shortcut - the Earth is flat.

 

[Dino246]

It would be the shortest path were Earth a ball. Commercial flights don't shortcut across Antarctica because it's not a shortcut - the Earth is flat.

Fallacy: moving the goalposts.

First, it's the "South Pole", now, it's "Antarctica".

 

[Moses_Young]

Speaking of poles...


View attachment 269253


if the Earth was flat the north and south pole would both be in the same place - there would be no such thing as a wprking compass. north would be up and south down, or vice versa.

Of course there would. One only needs to take a compass to a magnet to prove this. Preferably a magnet where the north and south ends are separated by sufficient distance, and then only at the horizontal plane intersecting the north end.

 

[posthuman]

“Our” worldview is in conflict with basic science? Which science, exactly?

a lot of times i don't bother because i know it's going to sail right over their heads.

 

[posthuman]

Of course there would. One only needs to take a compass to a magnet to prove this. Preferably a magnet where the north and south ends are separated by sufficient distance, and then only at the horizontal plane intersecting the north end.

i don't think you understand how to read the diagram.
so i am not wasting my time showing you the math.

on a disc magnet the south pole is not the edge. it's the other side. it's the whole face.
if you are on the north face, south is always down. a compass on a flat earth would never spin, period, unless you were on the edge, 90° from the face.

 

[Dino246]

a lot of times i don't bother because i know it's going to sail right over their heads.

I like to give them opportunity to avoid answering the question.

 

[Conformed]

There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet—notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth’s “convexity.” It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Agreed. Thankfully, God is merciful and gracious. He wants even flat Earthers to come to repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth. 😎

What if they're not repentant?


🧇

 

[posthuman]

There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet—notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth’s “convexity.” It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

false.

gravity pulls towards the center of mass. if you superimpose a tangential plane at one point of the surface of a sphere, that plane will not be tangent to another point on the surface.

your grasp of geometry is quite loose.
the 'height' measurement is not relative to the imaginary arbitrary tangent plane, but to the center of mass.

on a disc that center of mass is the centroid - if the Earth were flat the Nile would not flow, at all, and all water would tend to flow towards the north pole. you would weigh less at the equator than you would in north america or europe, and a pound of cheese would be less cheese in the north than in the south.

 

[Dino246]

What if they're not repentant?


🧇

Then they remain ignorant.

Note that the Greek word translated "repent" means literally "to change the mind".

 

[posthuman]

There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet—notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth’s “convexity.” It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

also the Nile drops over 75 meters - way more than a foot.

i am finding that your posts are full of false information ((lies)) and false reasoning ((deceit)).

you're a republican?

 

[Dino246]

There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet—notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth’s “convexity.” It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

You don’t seem to understand “level”; it is not a synonym of “flat”.

 

[Conformed]

The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed “curvature” given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no “curvature,” on the surface of the sea—“the level of the sea,”—ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[Dino246]

The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed “curvature” given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no “curvature,” on the surface of the sea—“the level of the sea,”—ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.

You're using the wrong formula to calculate "hidden height". Try going to scientific sources instead of Flat-Earth sources to get your maths.

Wrongheaded maths are "conclusive proof" of nothing but ignorance.

 

[Conformed]

If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently “rise”—to the extent of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other “rise” than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell’s balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be “coming up” the imaginary downward curve of the Earth’s surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-five miles away, on a level with the eye—that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be “rounding the curve,” and “coming up!” This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[Dino246]

If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently “rise”—to the extent of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other “rise” than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell’s balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be “coming up” the imaginary downward curve of the Earth’s surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-five miles away, on a level with the eye—that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be “rounding the curve,” and “coming up!” This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.

In light of the ongoing discussion and evidence presented, your post is not plain proof of anything other than your stubborn unwillingness to learn or admit error.

 

[Conformed]

If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears “hull down,” as it is called, it is because the hull is “behind the water:” for, vessels have been seen, and may often be seen again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away—far away—beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees, towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the “hull-down” ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[Dino246]

If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears “hull down,” as it is called, it is because the hull is “behind the water:” for, vessels have been seen, and may often be seen again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away—far away—beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees, towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the “hull-down” ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.

You don’t seem to understand the concept of “proof”. One observation of a disputable matter is not proof. One very flawed interpretation of one observation certainly isn’t proof.

 

[posthuman]

It would be the shortest path were Earth a ball. Commercial flights don't shortcut across Antarctica because it's not a shortcut - the Earth is flat.

All these are regular flights you can book right now.



All these are impossibly longer than reality if you use the flat earth map you posted.

a flight from Perth to Buenos Aires would have to carry a lot of special equipment in case they were forced to emergency land on Antarctica and would have to be a very large airliner to abide by restrictions for how far it travels between emergency diversion airports. That means only the largest jets are practical to make that route and there needs to be the demand for them to be full in order to be commercially viable, but they also have to have reduced capacity to carry shelter.

It doesn't snt make business sense. So if you want to go from buenos aires to Perth, you gonna connect in Sydney first. But that's still an impossibility if the Earth is flat, yet it happens a dozen times every day.

The earth isn't flat.