What's even more interesting is that the leader of the Flat Earth Society is an atheist who has strong ties to evolution and I think even the Big Bang. Not sure how that works out, but whatever.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
DFT...
If the earth is flat, then the outer circumference of the earth must be the longest to circumnavigate. However, if the earth is spherical, then the area around the equator must be the longest to circumnavigate.
For example, in the globe-earth image below, 60°S should be much quicker to circumnavigate than 0°, which is the equator:
Yet according to the flat-earth model, the farther south you go, the longer the circumference of each circle of latitude should be, like so:
Which is it and why, DFT?????????????????
Flat vs globe Circumference
The circumferences from the top down globe and middle out flat to the equator are the same on both. The circumferences below the equator on flat earth would get longer and on the globe would become smaller again. James Clark, as previously mentioned sailed 60,000 miles around Antarctica not 10,000 which is the actual distance. Those are not based on zigzaging. 60,000 miles is 2 and 1/2 times around the equator. That any one would think that he sailed 10,000 miles straight and 50,000 miles of zigzag does not know that distance mapping over the open seas always has been very precise based on longitude, latitude, stars, and movements of sun and moon.
View attachment 25263
This is the flight pattern from Argentina or Chile to Sydney.
All flights and all ships actually follow the flat earth model.
View attachment 25264 View attachment 25266
View attachment 25265
Here is the most accurate map ever made.
--Dave
Eric Dubay is at the head of this movement and he is a pantheist, Buddhist or Hindu.
--Dave
Expert cartographers will disagree because it's wrong.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Or perhaps they know what they're doing and take accurate measurements of landmasses.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
How to test for flat vs globe
In order to test this we must first agree on the basics and how we define them.
First of all we must distinguish between actual experiment and thought experiment.
"Thought experiments are devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things. They are used for diverse reasons in a variety of areas, including economics, history, mathematics, philosophy, and the sciences, especially physics." --Stanford
Einstein's thought experiments.
"These 5 mind-melting thought experiments helped Albert Einstein come up with his most revolutionary scientific ideas"--Business insider
Thought experiments are propositions that lead to logical conclusion "if this is true then this follows and is true as well". Not all propositions, "ifs", are true, many times they are assumed to be true and need to be tested.
Thought experiments to back to Greek philosophy and cosmology. Pythagoras determined the earth to be a globe by thought not by measurement. "If the sun and moon are spheres than so is the earth." He determined that sun, moon, stars and earth were "all" essentially the same thing, solid spheres. The Biblical account literally says the sun, moon, stars, and earth are different things. The most distinguishing feature is "water", only the earth has water, vast oceans. We get the idea of level from the oceans--sea level means flat. We also get our idea of flat earth from "straight horizons".
So, flat earth is consistent with empirical observation of level and straight. This is what fuels the flat earth concept. The modern movement is being energized by the Nikon P900 camera. It is being used to "prove" the geometric curvature of the earth does not exist.
Every basic cosmological concept is being challenged. This challenge is popular because it's about what we can actually see as opposed to what we cannot see. I know that many cosmological arguments are philosophical at their premise not based in science or empirical evidence.
What is the horizon line?
The first step for me is our sense perception of earth. What is my first visible reference point? I want to begin with the horizon line. What is it? I have been confused on this and I'm not alone. I was asked a good question about this, "how come we can only see a distance of 2 to three miles ahead of us at ground level with our eyes, but we can see the sun, moon (even it's craters which are actually very small in diameter), and stars that are thousands and millions of miles away? How come we see any thing at all beyond the horizon line?
I saw one definition of horizon that said it's where sky meets earth. I think it would be agreeable for all of us to say that it's where sky "visually" meets earth. The horizon line is the limit of our ability to see in the distance of earth. As we elevate higher the more of earth we can see and the further the our horizon line becomes. At 3 feet in height I can see 2.3 miles. At 6 feet in height I can see 3.9 miles. At 12 feet I can see 4.6 miles.
The horizon line exists because the earth beneath our feet appears to rise up to our eye level. But we know instinctively that it is not actually rising. Anything that we can see beyond our horizon line must be tall and large enough for me to see it, tall buildings, mountains, etc.
We know the landscape does not actually rise up. We also know that if our eyes did not perceive it that way we would not see anything coming at us until it was right in front of us, and vise versa. Globe earth argues that the horizon line, beyond where things are no longer in view, is because the earth beneath our feet is actually dropping away from us and at 3 miles has dropped 6 feet, 8 inches per mile squared they say. That means the earth drops 24 feet at 6 miles. Flat earth argues that the earth is not dropping away from us but only distance makes it appear that way, i.e. the earth is still flat beyond our horizon line.
How would you test this to see who is right?
Both thought and actual experiments are acceptable but we must distinguished between the two.
--Dave
In order to test this we must first agree on the basics and how we define them.
First of all we must distinguish between actual experiment and thought experiment.
"Thought experiments are devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things. They are used for diverse reasons in a variety of areas, including economics, history, mathematics, philosophy, and the sciences, especially physics." --Stanford
Einstein's thought experiments.
"These 5 mind-melting thought experiments helped Albert Einstein come up with his most revolutionary scientific ideas"--Business insider
Thought experiments are propositions that lead to logical conclusion "if this is true then this follows and is true as well". Not all propositions, "ifs", are true, many times they are assumed to be true and need to be tested.
Thought experiments to back to Greek philosophy and cosmology. Pythagoras determined the earth to be a globe by thought not by measurement. "If the sun and moon are spheres than so is the earth." He determined that sun, moon, stars and earth were "all" essentially the same thing, solid spheres. The Biblical account literally says the sun, moon, stars, and earth are different things. The most distinguishing feature is "water", only the earth has water, vast oceans. We get the idea of level from the oceans--sea level means flat. We also get our idea of flat earth from "straight horizons".
So, flat earth is consistent with empirical observation of level and straight. This is what fuels the flat earth concept. The modern movement is being energized by the Nikon P900 camera. It is being used to "prove" the geometric curvature of the earth does not exist.
Every basic cosmological concept is being challenged. This challenge is popular because it's about what we can actually see as opposed to what we cannot see. I know that many cosmological arguments are philosophical at their premise not based in science or empirical evidence.
What is the horizon line?
The first step for me is our sense perception of earth. What is my first visible reference point? I want to begin with the horizon line. What is it? I have been confused on this and I'm not alone. I was asked a good question about this, "how come we can only see a distance of 2 to three miles ahead of us at ground level with our eyes, but we can see the sun, moon (even it's craters which are actually very small in diameter), and stars that are thousands and millions of miles away? How come we see any thing at all beyond the horizon line?
I saw one definition of horizon that said it's where sky meets earth. I think it would be agreeable for all of us to say that it's where sky "visually" meets earth. The horizon line is the limit of our ability to see in the distance of earth. As we elevate higher the more of earth we can see and the further the our horizon line becomes. At 3 feet in height I can see 2.3 miles. At 6 feet in height I can see 3.9 miles. At 12 feet I can see 4.6 miles.
The horizon line exists because the earth beneath our feet appears to rise up to our eye level. But we know instinctively that it is not actually rising. Anything that we can see beyond our horizon line must be tall and large enough for me to see it, tall buildings, mountains, etc.
We know the landscape does not actually rise up. We also know that if our eyes did not perceive it that way we would not see anything coming at us until it was right in front of us, and vise versa. Globe earth argues that the horizon line, beyond where things are no longer in view, is because the earth beneath our feet is actually dropping away from us and at 3 miles has dropped 6 feet, 8 inches per mile squared they say. That means the earth drops 24 feet at 6 miles. Flat earth argues that the earth is not dropping away from us but only distance makes it appear that way, i.e. the earth is still flat beyond our horizon line.
How would you test this to see who is right?
Both thought and actual experiments are acceptable but we must distinguished between the two.
--Dave
Last edited:
How to test for flat vs globe
Testing the horizon line.
See my last post #1487 as a preliminary. I want to focus now on just this aspect of the debate and come to a final summary of it for both sides. The subject matter could have been divided up into many threads not just one, hindsight.
A 6 foot drop cannot appear as a 6 foot rise.
The 3 miles that I see gradually rise in front of me to my 6 foot eye level, absolutely cannot be actually declining to a 6 foot level below me. That's a 12 foot difference. A downward curving earth cannot appear to be rising to my eye level. That is a contradiction. A flat earth can rise to my eye level, but not a downward curving one. All moving objects in front of us, on land or sea, gradually get smaller as they move further away and higher toward our horizon line. Then as they move beyond the horizon line they lose proportion mostly notably at the bottom. If the ground and water beneath our feet were actually declining and not flat then moving objects would gradually disappear from our view without first rising to a horizon line we would have to look down at the horizon instead.
The picture of a 6 foot tall person standing on a curved earth is imagined to be looking straight forward to a declining curvature, that seems to rise before it falls, when in fact he would have to be looking downward not straight forward in order to see that. This is an accurate thought experiment comparing both views. This is an absolute truth, a downward curving earth cannot rise to eye level.
<----------------------------Straight line of sight
View attachment 25271
--Dave
Testing the horizon line.
See my last post #1487 as a preliminary. I want to focus now on just this aspect of the debate and come to a final summary of it for both sides. The subject matter could have been divided up into many threads not just one, hindsight.
A 6 foot drop cannot appear as a 6 foot rise.
The 3 miles that I see gradually rise in front of me to my 6 foot eye level, absolutely cannot be actually declining to a 6 foot level below me. That's a 12 foot difference. A downward curving earth cannot appear to be rising to my eye level. That is a contradiction. A flat earth can rise to my eye level, but not a downward curving one. All moving objects in front of us, on land or sea, gradually get smaller as they move further away and higher toward our horizon line. Then as they move beyond the horizon line they lose proportion mostly notably at the bottom. If the ground and water beneath our feet were actually declining and not flat then moving objects would gradually disappear from our view without first rising to a horizon line we would have to look down at the horizon instead.
The picture of a 6 foot tall person standing on a curved earth is imagined to be looking straight forward to a declining curvature, that seems to rise before it falls, when in fact he would have to be looking downward not straight forward in order to see that. This is an accurate thought experiment comparing both views. This is an absolute truth, a downward curving earth cannot rise to eye level.
<----------------------------Straight line of sight
View attachment 25271
--Dave
Last edited:
Let me modify my statement and say that nearly all the flat earth websites (at least the ones I've happened across while debating this with you) seem to all be overtly Christian.
One thing's for sure, it certainly isn't based on anything rational or in the slightest bit scientific. It's based, primarily, it seems to me, on fictitious "evidence" produced by YouTube hoaxers. An excellent example of which is your last post about how planes follow a flat earth model. It's a flat lie. Not that you're telling a lie but that you've believed one and are simply repeating it. Planes absolutely do not fly in anything resembling a straight line on a flat plane, especially on long flights. They fly along orthodromic (great circle) routes and ships follow trade winds and ocean currents.
Speaking of ocean currents. There is no explanation for them in a flat earth model. Not only is there no reason why the equator on a flat earth would divide the oceans (all of them) into currents that flow clockwise in the north and counter-clockwise in the south, but since the southern oceans would be very much larger in the south than in the north, the flat earthers have to figure out what accelerates the flow as it goes south and puts the breaks on as it flows north.
View attachment 25275
The above picture depicts the flow of the world's oceans. Now picture that on the typical flat earth model map and imagine how fast the water would have to flow to cover the distance it travels along the "ice wall" and then it would have to slow way back down again to account for the shorter distance that the same flow travels along the equator. The Gulf Stream flows at about 5 or 6 miles per hour. How fast would it have to go to travel the 60,000 miles you think it as "around" antarctica? And, in case you're wondering, the currents actually flow faster along the equator than they do along the "ice wall".
And all of that is a question that is more complex than it needs to be because on a flat, stationary earth, there would be no force creating counter-rotating ocean currents north and south of the equator. A spinning globe, on the other hand, explains it perfectly.
Clete
Looking for truth
Let's be careful here, I'm presenting flat earth arguments in a debate. That I am spreading a lie is nearly an indictment of deliberate intent to spread falsehood. A debate that presents both sides is an intent to find the truth and that's what I am attempting. You all already assume the earth is a globe and attack the other view like a mob that needs no trial to prove their case. :angrymob:
What I personally believe will come soon, after I have evaluated all the evidence from "both" sides.
The flight stops and destination of these commercial planes is a fact. Comparing flat earth with globe and the time of travel involved, we see that flat earth make sense and globe earth does not.
That James Cook traveling 60,000 mile around the arctic circle of 10,000 miles make no sense. By comparing the flat earth with globe earth we see that flat earth makes sense for that long of a voyage.
Ocean currents is another factor I'll look into the flat earth response.
--Dave
Dave,
If a video that clearly depicts a ship disappearing over the curvature of the Earth convinces you that the Earth is flat, what argument could possibly be made that would convince you otherwise?
You need to stop and think about whether you're stopping and thinking.
You've gone from all but denying that atmospheric lensing even happens at all to now using atmospheric lensing as THE explanation for why anything ever disappears over the horizon in the first place.
Not only that, but you've set yourself into a position where you can use the argument in both directions interchangeably as it seems flat earthers do with every argument made against their obviously false position.
Do you know what it means when something is unfalsifiable? I know that you do. Why are you willing to entertain such things?
If a video that clearly depicts a ship disappearing over the curvature of the Earth convinces you that the Earth is flat, what argument could possibly be made that would convince you otherwise?
You need to stop and think about whether you're stopping and thinking.
You've gone from all but denying that atmospheric lensing even happens at all to now using atmospheric lensing as THE explanation for why anything ever disappears over the horizon in the first place.
Not only that, but you've set yourself into a position where you can use the argument in both directions interchangeably as it seems flat earthers do with every argument made against their obviously false position.
Do you know what it means when something is unfalsifiable? I know that you do. Why are you willing to entertain such things?
I get that you're primarily just presenting the arguments and whether you believe anything you posted there or not, the fact is that it was false and the person who produced it almost certainly knew that it was false when he produced it. As such it was a lie. Whether you believe the lie or not, the fact is that you repeated that lie. That doesn't make you a liar. It just makes you the guy who repeated the falsehood. A lie requires an intent to decieve which I don't believe you're guilty of and which I think I made plainly clear in my post but if that wasn't the case then, hopefully it is now.
It might help you to know that I'm responding to the arguments you present as though they are your arguments. If I get frustrated with you, it's only because you play the part of Devil's advocate very convincingly. :devil:
There you go again, repeating this nonsense! Planes, as a general rule, fly in orthodromic routes. You can repeat the contrary till you're blue in the face if you want. It won't change the facts of life. Planes do not fly in anything resembling straight lines on a flat plane. On the cotrary, if the Earth is flat, they fly in meaningless, unexplainable arcs which just so happen to perfectly mark out what would be the shortest distance between two points on a globe.
Unexplainable, that is, unless you allow the special pleading of a great conspiracy that exists to trick us all into thinking the world isn't flat.
Actually, I already explained it. The distance, according to the map you provides is closer to 20,500 miles. If he recorded 60k, he either made an error or whoever told you that made it up. The coastline of Antarctica is just over 11,000 miles, not the 78,000 or so that flat earth folks claim.
No, as I already explained, he'd have had to make course corrections in the other direction to keep from running into the ice wall. If the ice wall is on his right then, if he turns right (which he did), he hits the wall, (which he didn't).
:up:
Looking for truth
Let's be careful here, I'm presenting flat earth arguments in a debate. That I am spreading a lie is nearly an indictment of deliberate intent to spread falsehood. A debate that presents both sides is an intent to find the truth and that's what I am attempting. You all already assume the earth is a globe and attack the other view like a mob that needs no trial to prove their case. :angrymob:
What I personally believe will come soon, after I have evaluated all the evidence from "both" sides.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend the idea of propositional arguments that compare one model against another. The two models are not directly knowable to us flat or globe. From earth the visual empirical evidence from our perspective is that the earth is flat and stationary. Ships from shore do not seem to go over the curved earth, they simply sail out of sight beyond what we can see. The horizon line "rises" before us as we look straight ahead of us--eye level. If the earth were curved we would have to look down at the horizon, which we never do. How does refraction effect our vision is next on my list.
You can argue the globe earth position, how obvious it is is "debatable".
--Dave
Planes go up, level off then come down. That's the only arch that they actually fly.
There are pilots that say the earth is flat.
Cook did not get to the ice walls. He did not sail close enough. "In 1773 James Cook and his crew crossed the Antarctic Circle for the first time but although they discovered nearby islands, they did not catch sight of Antarctica itself."--Wiki
"The voyage lasted three years and eight days covering more than 60,000 miles. Cook had proved there was no southern continent unless it was at the pole itself."--James Cook
The "you lie" card is meant to evoke an emotion and deflect from rational thought, and can also be just an emotional response. So which is it for you? Are you trying to evoke an emotion or are you just getting emotional about this? :think:
--Dave
Last edited:
Refraction
Are objects we see in the distance refracted images? A refracted image is not the actual location of an object. The fish you see in the water from the surface is not where the fish actually is located. But if you are under the water with the fish there is no refraction and the fish is located exactly where you see it.
Are objects located within the 3 mile limit of our visual horizon refracted or not? At what distance does refraction begin? In other words how far away are object that I see not in the actual location I see them? If we and distant objects are in the same atmospheric conditions then no refraction would occur, right?
Distance to the Horizon--Link
Without refraction we cannot see objects that are too far below the horizon line of a globe earth. With refraction we see a projected image of the objects that are to far below the horizon line for us to actually see on a curved globe. Are sun light rays "sometimes" refracted or "always" refracted? How do we know. Can we test it?
View attachment 25278 View attachment 25279
--Dave
Are objects we see in the distance refracted images? A refracted image is not the actual location of an object. The fish you see in the water from the surface is not where the fish actually is located. But if you are under the water with the fish there is no refraction and the fish is located exactly where you see it.
Are objects located within the 3 mile limit of our visual horizon refracted or not? At what distance does refraction begin? In other words how far away are object that I see not in the actual location I see them? If we and distant objects are in the same atmospheric conditions then no refraction would occur, right?
Distance to the Horizon--Link
Without refraction we cannot see objects that are too far below the horizon line of a globe earth. With refraction we see a projected image of the objects that are to far below the horizon line for us to actually see on a curved globe. Are sun light rays "sometimes" refracted or "always" refracted? How do we know. Can we test it?
View attachment 25278 View attachment 25279
--Dave
gcthomas
New member
Refraction has been known about for over 400 years, so the answer to your question "Can we test it?" is most certainly 'yes, it has been tested and has been fully understood for a very long time'. How come you are so far behind the times? Don't you have access to the Internet?
How is it tested and proven?? Just saying it is is not an answer.
Refractions exist as mirages and can be demonstrated from objects in and out of water at the same time. Objects down the block from me are not refractions nor two blocks from me.
If it's so simple and so obvious then answer my questions. When do they begin, how far away, and how do you know?
--Dave
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
http://bfy.tw/9uxZ
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
You know that I call it as I see it. You are being lied too, Dave. It is't my fault that you propogate the lie.
Which is easier to believe? That there is a conspiracy that has been propagated for centuries where millions of people are in on the lie designed to convince the world population the we live on a globe for no reason at all except for deceptions own sake or that some fool on the internet is feeding you full of B.S. about a supposed 60,000 mile sailing voyage?
And, by the way, the exact course that ship took very definitely makes a whopping big difference is the total miles sailed, I don't care what method he used to calculate his course and speed. In other words, if this captains records are accurate and you're not being lied to, which is doubtful in the extreme, then it still barely qualifies as evidence, never mind proof, of a flat Earth.
Further, the fact the he was far enough away from the ice wall not to see it is not relevant to the argument that he would have had to make course corrections to the left, not the right in order to prevent himself from crashing into the wall! The fact that he never saw it while sailing his ship in a counter-clock wise course is PROOF that the Earth is a GLOBE!!! If it were flat, there's no way to sail that course without smacking your boat into the ice wall.
Clete
- Status