Terry50

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2017, 06:06:23 AM »
to Phsychotropic:
Hi,
there are various You Tube Videos.    I believe watching videos of explorers and listening to their interviews from their own lips than a Official Government Documents that of course you are allowed to go there if you have authorization  (meaning you come from a university which will forbid any flat earth talk.)

Also, remember, the CIA and 14 million other government agencies, are keeping a lid of secrecy on it. They have power over the media.  Do you believe we landed on the moon when they can't get through the radiation belt?  Kaiser Aluminum should get a NOBEL Prize for using their aluminum foil on the inside walls of the space capsule.  ha  ha

For more info:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Antarctica-is-extremely-protected-by-the-military-and-that-it-is-not-possible-to-venture-far-inland-even-for-scientific-exploration

Terry50

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2017, 06:13:30 AM »
hello Psychotropic    :)
Your geometry teacher would agree with me.
You are CORRECT -  If you hold up a basketball in a room without added lighting which showed shadows and reflections -  the Basketball would project the shape of a circle at a reasonable distance.  But projection of an image is not a true representation of the object in this case.  If you come up closer, you will reach the point where you recognize that it is a sphere.     :o

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2017, 06:15:14 AM »
to Phsychotropic:
Hi,
there are various You Tube Videos.    I believe watching videos of explorers and listening to their interviews from their own lips than a Official Government Documents that of course you are allowed to go there if you have authorization  (meaning you come from a university which will forbid any flat earth talk.)

Also, remember, the CIA and 14 million other government agencies, are keeping a lid of secrecy on it. They have power over the media.  Do you believe we landed on the moon when they can't get through the radiation belt?  Kaiser Aluminum should get a NOBEL Prize for using their aluminum foil on the inside walls of the space capsule.  ha  ha

For more info:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Antarctica-is-extremely-protected-by-the-military-and-that-it-is-not-possible-to-venture-far-inland-even-for-scientific-exploration

Thanks for the link, I will read through it in a moment.  As for the Van Allen belts, I do recall reading some time ago that the scientists performing that experiment stated that the damage and destruction that mission incurred was similar, maybe the same, as what space craft and statsions are designed to mitigate.  I can't find that link right this second.  That does make me wonder something though - do you then believe that there is no dome and that space is accessible to humans?  I have read many threads here and that doesn't seem to be the consensus, although I've also found that different FE "societies" somtimes have rather conflicting views.

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2017, 06:20:02 AM »
hello Psychotropic    :)
Your geometry teacher would agree with me.
You are CORRECT -  If you hold up a basketball in a room without added lighting which showed shadows and reflections -  the Basketball would project the shape of a circle at a reasonable distance.  But projection of an image is not a true representation of the object in this case.  If you come up closer, you will reach the point where you recognize that it is a sphere.     :o

Absolutely agree, which is why I edited my post and added the whole "higher/closer" line.  When God gets closer to the Earth, it should then also look like a sphere though right?

Terry50

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2017, 06:36:06 AM »
Hi Psychotropic
I'm trying to send an attachment with a picture.
It's not working.

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2017, 06:37:51 AM »
to Phsychotropic:
Hi,
there are various You Tube Videos.    I believe watching videos of explorers and listening to their interviews from their own lips than a Official Government Documents that of course you are allowed to go there if you have authorization  (meaning you come from a university which will forbid any flat earth talk.)

Also, remember, the CIA and 14 million other government agencies, are keeping a lid of secrecy on it. They have power over the media.  Do you believe we landed on the moon when they can't get through the radiation belt?  Kaiser Aluminum should get a NOBEL Prize for using their aluminum foil on the inside walls of the space capsule.  ha  ha

For more info:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Antarctica-is-extremely-protected-by-the-military-and-that-it-is-not-possible-to-venture-far-inland-even-for-scientific-exploration

Thanks for the link, I will read through it in a moment.  As for the Van Allen belts, I do recall reading some time ago that the scientists performing that experiment stated that the damage and destruction that mission incurred was similar, maybe the same, as what space craft and statsions are designed to mitigate.  I can't find that link right this second.  That does make me wonder something though - do you then believe that there is no dome and that space is accessible to humans?  I have read many threads here and that doesn't seem to be the consensus, although I've also found that different FE "societies" somtimes have rather conflicting views.

Hello again,

I read through each reply in that link and they all say there is no military presence in Antarctica preventing civilians from exploring it.  I'm kind of disappointed as I was looking forward to what the thread had to say about it.

Terry50

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2017, 06:38:04 AM »
I made the pic smaller

Terry50

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2017, 06:45:44 AM »
Hello Psychotropic
You know there is water above the firmament.
There is water beneath also.

Concerning your military not allowing exploration  ---   If you can't find anything,  they are doing a great job keeping it secret.   You know Google owns you tube and they are writing computer programs which automatically delete secret things.   Of course the government agency is going to say it can be explored.  But first is the application, who, what you believe in, only allowed certain areas.
Watch the Admiral Byrd explorations. (1948)  After the first year approximately, he wasn't allowed to talk about it anymore.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2017, 12:07:50 PM »
Can someone point to a single like of scripture that says the Earth is flat? Not something you try to twist to fit your ideas, but an line of scripture that simply state the Earth is flat. I mean there are plenty of lines of scripture about other important topics, so there should be something that says the Earth is flat.

Terry50 - getting your info off of youtube is embarrassing. Anyone can post anything. It doesn't make it true. Also, with video being so easy to manipulate, you can't trust what you see.

If NASA is in league with the devil, does that mean the dozens of other orgs launching into space are also devil worshiping beasts? Also, where is the scripture about aerospace companies being evil or did you make that up, too??
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 1326
  • "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2017, 12:12:55 PM »
To  J-Man
If the man is wrong,  why do you call him good Dr.?

A lot of Christians mean well but have lost their way.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2017, 12:34:18 PM »
to squirrel -- You said  - You will not see curvature of the Earth at 30,000 feet.

That's very true.   Because there is no curvature.
Even on a round Earth, you will not be able to see the curvature of Earth at that height. It's not yet high enough. I've also yet to see you provide these maps you claim exist.

Terry50

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2017, 04:38:58 PM »
to Stinky
If you draw a circle on a paper;  it is flat.....    unless you draw a 3D sphere.   So circles by definition are flat.   I gave  2 scriptures saying the earth is a circle.   If you look at the picture I posted, you can tell the bottom is not flat like the top is.  But we don't know whether the bottom is flat or not.
Getting real ---  we got mountains - so we can say the earth is not flat like Kansas is flat.   But it isn't a sphere.  The other scriptures I gave say the earth does not move.   The sphere theory won't work without earth 24 hour rotation and going around the sun annually

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2017, 05:04:57 PM »
to Stinky
If you draw a circle on a paper;  it is flat.....    unless you draw a 3D sphere.   So circles by definition are flat.   I gave  2 scriptures saying the earth is a circle.   If you look at the picture I posted, you can tell the bottom is not flat like the top is.  But we don't know whether the bottom is flat or not.
Getting real ---  we got mountains - so we can say the earth is not flat like Kansas is flat.   But it isn't a sphere.  The other scriptures I gave say the earth does not move.   The sphere theory won't work without earth 24 hour rotation and going around the sun annually
The geocentric globe model could very likely still work with some more current adjustments.

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2017, 05:17:10 PM »
to Stinky
If you draw a circle on a paper;  it is flat.....    unless you draw a 3D sphere.   So circles by definition are flat.   I gave  2 scriptures saying the earth is a circle.   If you look at the picture I posted, you can tell the bottom is not flat like the top is.  But we don't know whether the bottom is flat or not.
Getting real ---  we got mountains - so we can say the earth is not flat like Kansas is flat.   But it isn't a sphere.  The other scriptures I gave say the earth does not move.   The sphere theory won't work without earth 24 hour rotation and going around the sun annually
Observations and measurements, including satellite operation and the path of the sun, prove the earth is a sphere

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2017, 05:33:35 PM »
to Stinky
If you draw a circle on a paper;  it is flat.....    unless you draw a 3D sphere.   So circles by definition are flat.   I gave  2 scriptures saying the earth is a circle.   If you look at the picture I posted, you can tell the bottom is not flat like the top is.  But we don't know whether the bottom is flat or not.
Getting real ---  we got mountains - so we can say the earth is not flat like Kansas is flat.   But it isn't a sphere.  The other scriptures I gave say the earth does not move.   The sphere theory won't work without earth 24 hour rotation and going around the sun annually

The picture you posted isn't real. Anyone can draw up something like that. It has no basis in observed reality. As for the circle thing, the Earth's outline is a circle. (more or less) It never says FLAT. If you ask people the shape of the Earth, many would say it is round or circular. No major church teaches the Earth is flat. Why should someone believe you over the vast conclusion of other Christians?
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2017, 08:47:12 PM »
I included the religious argument because ultimately, flat earth is about an exactly literal interpretation of specific scripture. Just for example, here is one example of a different, similarly literal interpretation of some different lines, with the author taking the position that they teach a spherical earth.

Something to remember is that the debates we're having are old. Very, very old, older than the new testament. And as with all things old and religious, there is only persuasion and interpretation of the text; observation and experiment don't really influence religious thought. And that's fine! Whether or not Jesus rose from the dead is not really a matter of experiment; the book says so, and you believe it or you don't.

The shape of the earth is a different story. Humans can in fact use considerable cognitive abilities to learn about the natural world around them, and at every turn, new discoveries about the world have divided the devout. One can wonder at the magnificence of God's creation and the elegance of galactic orbits, the mathematics of quantum physics, the complexity of space-time, etc., or one can insist that these discoveries are wrong, that the old way was right, that Feynman, Einstein, Faraday, Newton, Copernicus, and Democritus were all wrong or liars or worse, that the earth is flat and the universe is geocentric and that heaven is an actual, physical place above the dome of the sky. But in this case it is not old; that is, we can see for ourselves today if these interpretations are correct.

After all, the book never does explicitly say "The Earth is flat," though it does say things that can be interpreted to support this conclusion. These same things also hold if the Earth is understood to be a sphere. And because we can observe, all over the world and in all manner of ways, that the Earth is a globe, that the Earth orbits the sun, that it has an axial tilt that causes the seasons, etc., the only correct interpretation is that the book is referring to a round Earth...

because, for the nth time, the Earth IS round. I know just saying as much doesn't change any minds, and I actually couldn't care less. Saying it's flat does not make it flat, and saying it's round doesn't make it round; its observable nature shows that it is round.

If one thinks the book says the Earth is flat, while the Earth obviously is round, and the book is by definition correct, what must be true is that the thinking is incorrect, and the book says the earth is round.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2017, 09:42:58 PM »
...because ultimately, flat earth is about an exactly literal interpretation of specific scripture.

False.


Terry50

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2017, 01:52:00 AM »
to Inquisitive:
Did you see the movie where they put the satellites up with big balloons in Antartica?


there are truckloads of misinformation out there.  They never went to the moon. There is no space station. The federal reserve does not have the money to loan; the Rockerfellers and such bankers have been ripping off the USA for generations.   The IRS and the FED  were never constitutionally started.  etc. etc.  The Bushes were involved with 9/11 which was 100%  a demolition according to 1500 professionals.

Terry50

Re: Flat earth is not a viable model
« Reply #39 on: September 19, 2017, 08:42:07 AM »
 :P