41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bible Supports The Flat and Hollow Earth Theory!

« on: April 26, 2019, 03:10:06 PM »

If we're to take those words literally, then it doesn't say anywhere that the earth is not moving.  It just says that it cannot be moved.  Perhaps it is moving on its own, which is different.

Of course, the bible wasn't written in a time where the earth revolved around the sun, nor was it written by God Himself.  It was written by men.  Fallible men.  Can anyone say for certain that the word of God was scribed faithfully by these men without the use of symbolism?

For those who believe that the bible is the word of God the writer is moot. The word of God is the word of God regardless of who actually put those words on paper.

So, in this case do you believe that because God said the earth cannot be moved in the bible, then the Earth is not in fact moving at all?

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bible Supports The Flat and Hollow Earth Theory!

« on: April 25, 2019, 11:26:08 AM »

That is absolutely not true.  When I read it, which I have read it a few times, I don't remember any where where it says that the Earth is flat in a literal meaning.  Even when Jesus said go to the ends of the earth to spread the gospel, it did not mean that there was an end of the earth.  Instead it was figurative language that suggests more of a universal scope and not the geographical goal.

In Acts 1:8, Jesus said to the disciples, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (NIV)

In the current round earth model the sun is the center of our solar system and the earth is spinning every 24 hours and also orbiting around the sun. The earth is in motion. Any bible verse which says the earth or the world is not moving supports the flat earth model in which the flat earth does not move at all and everything rotates around it. In addition our solar system is flying through space as well.




Verses that say the earth can't or does not move:

1 Chronicles 16:30:
"The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

Psalm 104:5

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

Psalm 93:1

"The world was set in place; it cannot be moved."

Psalm 96:10

"The earth stands firm; it cannot be moved."




If God set the earth on its foundations and it can NEVER be moved then how is the earth spinning to create the round earth day/night cycle?
If God set the earth on its foundations and it can NEVER be moved then how is the earth orbiting the sun?
If God set the earth on its foundations and it can NEVER be moved then how is solar system (with the earth in it) moving through space?

If you believe that the earth is not moving then none of those things listed above are true and you would have no choice but to follow a more biblical flat earth model.






This verse the Devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth from the top of a mountain. Since people lived all over the earth (like the Aztecs in South America) the only way for Jesus to see all the kingdoms of the earth from the top of a mountain was if the earth was flat:

Matthew 4:8

If we're to take those words literally, then it doesn't say anywhere that the earth is not moving.  It just says that it cannot be moved.  Perhaps it is moving on its own, which is different.

Of course, the bible wasn't written in a time where the earth revolved around the sun, nor was it written by God Himself.  It was written by men.  Fallible men.  Can anyone say for certain that the word of God was scribed faithfully by these men without the use of symbolism?

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?

« on: April 13, 2019, 12:33:12 AM »

Perhaps Google's algorithms curve the pictures taken from space to shape them like a sphere.

That would seem a bit odd since the general FE belief about space travel is that it's a lie, so no photos from space could exist with a FE.

Besides, any curving of a flat surface would show distortion, which does not appear to happen.  If it zoomed out to a flat plane, it would be distorted as is evident by every non-spherical projection of the globe.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

« on: March 19, 2019, 07:05:23 PM »

Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?

How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.

The apparent rising and setting of the Sun is caused by perspective and, as the Sun grows increasingly farther away, it'll be hidden from sight by the atmosphere and limits of our eyes.

The Sun is perhaps 3000 miles high. It is almost-definitely spherical.

We have a wonderful Wiki. Please take some time to do some research.

Evidently the stars don't follow the same rules, because they're clearly visible at night right up to the horizon.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: zetetic vs atmolayer

« on: March 19, 2019, 03:39:39 PM »

Sure, but there has been no evidence shown that an atmolayer or dome has been detected by any device. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a device to detect the presence of something.

Exactly.  Radiation is just such a case.  And viruses.  Good luck seeing those without a device.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: studying sun using zetetic

« on: March 17, 2019, 07:07:16 PM »

I would think so.  I've come to the same conclusion from observing a sunset.  But, beware of cognitive bias.

How about stepping off a chair.  Do you feel yourself falling down, or the earth pushing up to your feet?  Someone here did that experiment and came to the latter as the conclusion, but there may have been psychoactive drugs involved.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Virgin Galactic

« on: March 14, 2019, 12:51:20 PM »

Round Earther coming in peace.

Recently, Virgin Galactic flew to an altitude of 90 km and is soon(ish) going to allow customers to do the same. This is the first time that the public will have the opportunity to go so high. I understand that it’s crazy expensive ($250,000), but if you were able to make the flight - perhaps Richard Branson let you do it for free - and you saw much more significant curvature than you see from a commercial flight, as they claim you would, what would you make of that observation?

Windows cause distortion. An curvature, however consistent with the round earth is caused by the windows. Or a camera. Or some other unexplainable phenomena created by flat earthers.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scale of the Flat Earth

« on: March 13, 2019, 06:58:01 PM »

That makes no sense, but okay.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: cone sun possible???

« on: March 05, 2019, 12:30:43 AM »

Of course it's possible.  Give it some time and they'll find a way to bend the light around the dome, invent some maths, and voila.  Conical sun.

Even a spherical sun on a flat earth can't explain the Antarctic summer solstice.  So, the problem isn't the shape of the sun.  It's the other thing.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Scale of the Flat Earth

« on: March 04, 2019, 03:53:16 PM »

I wanted to get a clearer picture of how a projection of the sun could make it appear in a different place in the sky (such as the summer solstice in Antarctica), so I put together a simple scale drawing of the flat earth according to the wiki.  The position of the sun may be inaccurate because I didn't see on the wiki how far out from the north pole the sun orbits.  If there's an official answer, please let me know.  If it changes depending on the seasons, then the equinox will do.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is Nasa cheating us?

« on: February 28, 2019, 12:24:32 PM »

It's not possible to prove that someone didn't do something, as that inherently makes no sense or requires enormous amounts of circumstantial evidence. (e.g., prove that I haven't been in your home) Instead, the onus is on NASA to prove they actually went to the moon, which they have never done.

But you should be able to provide evidence that they did do something. The something here being that they faked the moon landings well enough that the missions have gone down as recorded history, unchallenged by the Russians and other 3rd parties who were tracking the craft.

All the “evidence” I’ve seen around this are vague assertions about shadow angles or flapping flags and so on, a lot of it is based on ignorance. It’s not compelling evidence but I can see how confirmation bias could make it seem so.

So it’s not prove you haven’t been in my home. You’re claiming you have been in my home and you have plenty of photographic and video evidence of the journey there and of you in my home. You also left things in my home and took some objects from it. In that circumstance if someone didn’t believe you had been in my home then they’d have to provide some evidence as to how you could have made it appear as though you had to the point where most people accept you have.

Show us how this sole tread of the Apollo boots:



Can make this footprint:



High Res version from NASA's website: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11670HR.jpg

Another angle is found here: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11671HR.jpg

Ever stepped on sand? The circled print is skewed because of the other boot print. You can even see how the rounded portion on the top left of the circled print is pushed forward by the pressure from the boot on the print below. You can even see the top two treads of the lower print are slightly skewed as well, indicating, as stack mentioned, the likelihood of pivoting.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly

« on: February 12, 2019, 09:33:30 PM »

Here you go Tom.  Do a bit of light reading.

https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/curved-images-of-straight-lines-what-is-distortion

Congratulations.  You've just proved yourself to be completely unqualified to offer any credible analysis on photography.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stars vs Sun at Night

« on: January 25, 2019, 03:20:15 PM »

I'll add a photo for clarity, in case some don't know what I meant in my OP.

Below, you can see the star trails with no distortions in the circular pattern of the trails, and clearly visible at such a great distance while close to the horizon.

54

Flat Earth Community / Re: Pole to Pole Trip Cancelled

« on: January 25, 2019, 01:48:30 AM »

I really don't see the point of posting

I do. There are all points against the globe theorists.

A failed kickstarter campaign (quite common) hardly seems like proof of anything.

Fraud and false and misleading claims seems to follow the Round Earth around. It shows that it's proponents have continusously failed to provide acceptable independent evidence.

Well, duh.  It's because the Earth is round, and it's a great way to get money out of gullible flat earthers.  Round Earthers have consistently been providing independent evidence.  But if it supports the round Earth, it seems no evidence is acceptable for you.  I'm sorry you missed your flight.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Stars vs Sun at Night

« on: January 23, 2019, 03:13:12 PM »

If I can see the stars at and above the horizon at night, why is the sun not visible when it's on the daylight side of the plane.  If there is significant atmoplane along the horizon, which is used as an excuse for night, the sun disappearing, the sun dropping below the horizon, and all sorts of other stuff.

The stars are crystal clear, and with long exposure photography you can see so much more in the night sky with no loss of detail along the horizon.  If these are all celestial objects that are at or beyond the distance of the sun, then why can we not see the sun, which from the point of the observer appears so much larger than the stars.

On a FE, this makes no sense.  Why is the atmoplane selective of what it lets you see?  What makes the sun special that it gets obscured at night, but not stars?

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion

« on: January 21, 2019, 08:36:46 PM »

The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.

This would only apply if UA were the only source of gravity in the universe. We can safely assume that this is not the case.

Are you saying we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe, or that we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe that is affecting the Earth?

57

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 21, 2019, 07:18:20 PM »

If the eclipse is being caused by an unknown shadow object, such as sandokhan's shadow moon (which is supposedly the same size as the moon, sun, and jupiter), then it's interesting that the shadow is so large yet the object causing the shadow can't be seen by anyone.  If anyone has personally witnessed such a shadow object (no NASA employees, please), I would love to see evidence of this.

The photo below shows an illustration of an extrapolation of the shadow based on the arc on the moon.


Please note:  The blue circle is NOT part of the original photo.  I added that to the photo of the moon for illustration purposes.

58

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 21, 2019, 06:50:15 PM »

Here are my photos from last night.  Holy crap it was cold out.  My wife probably thought I was crazy.

This was taken in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  Not a cloud in the sky.

Times taken:
Top Left: 10:43 PM ET
Top Right: 11:15 PM ET
Bottom Left: 11:42 PM ET
Bottom Right: 12:12 AM ET

Focal length 500mm.  Shutter speed, ISO and aperture varied due to diminishing brightness.

59

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 21, 2019, 04:27:24 AM »

Moon is almost completely in Earth's shadow right now.  Moon on my s/e at approximately 150 degrees.  Coming in from bottom left.  I'll up pics later.

60

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 21, 2019, 02:18:39 AM »

timeanddate will be streaming it live as well.