The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: dirtysnowball on June 30, 2019, 10:03:21 PM

Title: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: dirtysnowball on June 30, 2019, 10:03:21 PM
We see a spherical Sun, we see a spherical Moon and when I look at the planets through my telescope I see them as spherical too.  In fact nothing else in the Universe, regardless of which direction we look is actually flat. Apart from the rings of Saturn and they are not flat in reality.

So if I can ask a simple question then, why should the Earth be flat, who was the first person to suggest it is and why?

Surely some one on the flat Earth side can answer this?  You say you believe the Earth is flat but you don't say why?  I realise that the FE Wiki page states things like the Earth looking flat etc etc but that is neither evidence or proof.  So why should the Earth be flat?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Bad Puppy on July 19, 2019, 07:53:47 PM
We see a spherical Sun, we see a spherical Moon and when I look at the planets through my telescope I see them as spherical too.  In fact nothing else in the Universe, regardless of which direction we look is actually flat. Apart from the rings of Saturn and they are not flat in reality.

So if I can ask a simple question then, why should the Earth be flat, who was the first person to suggest it is and why?

Surely some one on the flat Earth side can answer this?  You say you believe the Earth is flat but you don't say why?  I realise that the FE Wiki page states things like the Earth looking flat etc etc but that is neither evidence or proof.  So why should the Earth be flat?

Many galaxies are flat.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: kopfverderber on July 20, 2019, 07:19:18 AM
If you are asking for FET evidence that the earth is flat, a good place to start would be the wiki in this site.

If you are asking what motives bring people to believe that the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence against it, I could think of at least two:
- Religious convictions. Some passages of the Bible seem to suggest that the earth is flat or fixed to a position.
- Appeal of conspiracy theories. That would be the psychological explanation.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 20, 2019, 09:03:35 AM
Galaxies are made up of billions of stars which gravity has sculpted into flattened disk shapes. These shapes can easily be accounted for through computer models using scientific data. Galaxies of course are not solid and there are several light years between the stellar members of a galaxy, all of which are individually spherical.

The rings of Saturn (along with the other three gas giant planets) are also flat but again not solid. Instead they are made up of debris, the particles of which has been arranged into a flat disc around the planet. Again through gravity. Accretion discs form around many stars, made up of the left over material that formed the star in the first place. Again flat yes but not solid. Such an accretion disc formed around the Sun in its early formation stages and that is why we have a solar system where all the major planet members orbit the Sun in very nearly the same plane. Science can account for all of these and we can observe all stages of solar system formation by looking out into the Universe with telescopes. What we see supports our theories.

Talking of the gas giants again for a second. The rotation of the planets causes a slight flattening (or squashing) effect around the axis of rotation. This effect increases as the rotation speed increases and not surprisingly then is greatest in the case of Jupiter which is also the fastest rotating planet. So this polar flattening effect as it is called increases with the rotation speed. So it stands to reason that if a planet were to rotate fast enough then it would indeed be transformed from a sphere into a very rapidly rotating disc.  However the rotation speed of the Earth (just over 1000mph or once in 24hrs (= just 24,880 miles equatorial circumference) is not nearly fast enough to make the Earth flat.

However no where else in the Universe have we yet found a solid body which is flat. So that is the basis for my question of why should the Earth be flat? We see it from a unique perspective compared to anything else in the Universe because we live on it!   That alone makes it look flat from our position at surface level. The reasons for that have been repeated several times already so there is no reason to again repeat those reasons here. Only since we have had the capability to travel into space have we been able to see at first hand the Earth in its true form. But of course those people who have become avid 'flat Earth believers' and now don't want to believe anything other, they simply dismiss space travel and all the photos and videos taken from space as being deliberately fabricated.  Fair enough.. whatever makes you happy.

On account of religious convictions - well I don't think anything in the bible is intended to represent a literal representation of reality and no Christians or members of any other faiths would suggest otherwise. In the past of course religion and science were both attempts, from different perspectives to explain the nature of the Universe. Both have developed over time to represent different roles in society and both now (unlike in the past) have a mutual respect and acceptance for each other.  There are many key religious figures in the world now who maintain a complete support of modern science and accept its findings. Including of course that the Earth is a sphere.

As for the appeal of conspiracy theories - well as far as I am concerned the less said about those the better.  Conspiracy theories have no proof. Otherwise they would cease to be theories.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Roundy on July 20, 2019, 01:47:47 PM
The Earth is different from those other bodies. It's much, much larger, for example.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 20, 2019, 02:58:26 PM
Quote
The Earth is different from those other bodies. It's much, much larger, for example.

Not entirely sure what your point is here.  Care to elaborate a bit more?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Roundy on July 21, 2019, 06:07:51 AM
Quote
The Earth is different from those other bodies. It's much, much larger, for example.

Not entirely sure what your point is here.  Care to elaborate a bit more?

We should not expect that the Earth's great size compared to the observable heavenly bodies would not have some kind of effect on how it came into its shape.

RE Theory has a similarity in the way smaller objects like asteroids tend to be irregular, and the larger an object gets the more likely it is to form spherically, until you reach very large scales like galaxies, which tend to be flat; in RE Theory if you scale it out to universe size, shape can only really be accurately comprehended in four dimensions!

All that we suggest, by contrast, is that very large objects like the Earth tend to be flat, while smaller objects like the sun and planets tend to be spherical.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 21, 2019, 08:05:56 AM
Quote
very large objects like the Earth tend to be flat, while smaller objects like the sun and planets tend to be spherical

Does this mean that you think the Sun is smaller than the Earth then?  If so wrong my friend, seriously wrong! You could fit around 1 million Earths inside the Sun.

Quote
We should not expect that the Earth's great size compared to the observable heavenly bodies

The Earth looks big to us because compared to us it is and we live on it. I'm not going to go into why the Sun and Moon look the same size on the sky (1/2 degree) even though they are not physically the same size as it is well known why that is.  The Earth is neither the smallest nor the largest planet of course.  It is kind of just about midway.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Roundy on July 21, 2019, 02:47:16 PM
Quote
very large objects like the Earth tend to be flat, while smaller objects like the sun and planets tend to be spherical

Does this mean that you think the Sun is smaller than the Earth then?  If so wrong my friend, seriously wrong! You could fit around 1 million Earths inside the Sun.

Quote
We should not expect that the Earth's great size compared to the observable heavenly bodies

The Earth looks big to us because compared to us it is and we live on it. I'm not going to go into why the Sun and Moon look the same size on the sky (1/2 degree) even though they are not physically the same size as it is well known why that is.  The Earth is neither the smallest nor the largest planet of course.  It is kind of just about midway.

You should really actually acquaint yourself with Flat Earth Theory before trying to argue against it. I recommend reading the cosmology sections of the wiki and then maybe come back if you have any further questions.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 21, 2019, 03:27:37 PM
I have done many time thanks and found numerous points in it which are a little dubious to say the least. In fact the cosmology section is probably the part of FE Wiki where I have found the most holes if I'm honest. Any particular points that you have in mind?

I'm not sure where this stuff comes from.  But it certainly makes for interesting.. no that's the wrong word, entertaining reading.  The sections of the Moon and lunar phases for example.  Really? 
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 21, 2019, 03:46:56 PM
You may also want to have a read through the forum rules. If you don't have anything to say that contributes to the discussion, consider simply not saying anything. Warned.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: junker on July 21, 2019, 05:03:00 PM
I have done many time thanks and found numerous points in it which are a little dubious to say the least. In fact the cosmology section is probably the part of FE Wiki where I have found the most holes if I'm honest. Any particular points that you have in mind?

I'm not sure where this stuff comes from.  But it certainly makes for interesting.. no that's the wrong word, entertaining reading.  The sections of the Moon and lunar phases for example.  Really?

I'd suggest you argue thos points you disagree with, then. Saying you won't explain why the sun and moon look the same size in the sky is pointless. The FE folks here have a good understanding of RE mechanics. They already know that in the RE model the sun has 400 times the diameter and is 400 times farther away, which is why they appear to be the same size.

Saying that it's "dubios" is a hollow, lazy statement. Address the points and make your arguments. Otherwise you'll end up warned again.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 21, 2019, 06:34:52 PM
Quote
Saying you won't explain why the sun and moon look the same size in the sky is pointless

I don't need to as you have already done that for me through what you have said.  If you don't believe that then perhaps you could offer an alternative explanation. Also to my original question which was why should the Earth be flat when no other solid object in the Universe (planet or otherwise) appears to be so.

To address one of my 'dubious' points about FW Wiki, consider the following. The diagram in FE wiki showing how the Moons phases 'work' in FET is wrong because the during the course of a year the inclination of the Moons orbit w.r.t the Sun means that the New moon lies both above and below the Sun. The FE Wiki diagram does not clearly illustrate this and that is why I have described it as 'dubious'.  The diagram as it is shown does not account it appears to me for how the same Moon phase is seen from all over the world over a 24 hour period.

On the flip side of the coin, the Moon position relative to the Sun table below the diagram I completely agree with.  I don't disagree with everything in FE Wiki just for the sake of it. On the points that I do disagree with I not only point this out but I also explain why I disagree with it. If it comes down to misinterpretation on my part then please advise and I will stand corrected.

Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Zonk on July 28, 2019, 09:58:39 PM
Hmm.  My first response was deleted.  let's see if this one sticks.

RE Theory has a similarity in the way smaller objects like asteroids tend to be irregular, and the larger an object gets the more likely it is to form spherically, until you reach very large scales like galaxies, which tend to be flat;

2 problems with this theory.  1, galaxies are not solid objects, but collections of billions of individual stars.  There has never been a solid, celestial sized object observed to be anything other than (roughly) a sphere.  2, some galaxies are relatively flat because the billions of starts are rotating around the common center of mass.  I have not ready anything in FE theory suggesting the earth is spinning fast enough to flatten out into a disc.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Roundy on July 29, 2019, 01:06:18 AM
Hmm.  My first response was deleted.  let's see if this one sticks.

RE Theory has a similarity in the way smaller objects like asteroids tend to be irregular, and the larger an object gets the more likely it is to form spherically, until you reach very large scales like galaxies, which tend to be flat;

2 problems with this theory.  1, galaxies are not solid objects, but collections of billions of individual stars.  There has never been a solid, celestial sized object observed to be anything other than (roughly) a sphere.

Yes there has. The Earth. And clearly nothing else in the observable universe even compares.

Quote
2, some galaxies are relatively flat because the billions of starts are rotating around the common center of mass.  I have not ready anything in FE theory suggesting the earth is spinning fast enough to flatten out into a disc.

It's not spinning at all. I wasn't saying they formed in the same way. How the Earth or a galaxy comes to be flat is irrelevant, the point is simply that there's an analogy to RET of not everything in the universe being spherical. Based on the evidence we have to assume that in FET the default shape for very large objects is flat, at least until we come across another object in the universe that contradicts that assumption.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Zonk on July 29, 2019, 01:17:06 AM
Hmm.  My first response was deleted.  let's see if this one sticks.

RE Theory has a similarity in the way smaller objects like asteroids tend to be irregular, and the larger an object gets the more likely it is to form spherically, until you reach very large scales like galaxies, which tend to be flat;

2 problems with this theory.  1, galaxies are not solid objects, but collections of billions of individual stars.  There has never been a solid, celestial sized object observed to be anything other than (roughly) a sphere.

Yes there has. The Earth. And clearly nothing else in the observable universe even compares.

Quote
2, some galaxies are relatively flat because the billions of starts are rotating around the common center of mass.  I have not ready anything in FE theory suggesting the earth is spinning fast enough to flatten out into a disc.

It's not spinning at all. I wasn't saying they formed in the same way. How the Earth or a galaxy comes to be flat is irrelevant, the point is simply that there's an analogy to RET of not everything in the universe being spherical.

So, the earth is the size of a galaxy?  Exactly how big do you suppose galaxies are?  And as a corollary to that question, how do you arrive  at that figure, given that observational data suggesting that stars are many, many orders of magnitude larger than the observable size of the earth is apparently dismissed?


Quote
Based on the evidence we have to assume that in FET the default shape for very large objects is flat, at least until we come across another object in the universe that contradicts that assumption.

About 1/4 of the observable galaxies are spherical or elliptical (egg shaped).  So there's your contradiction. 
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: CandiceBrantley on July 29, 2019, 08:58:38 AM
We see a spherical Sun, we see a spherical Moon and when I look at the planets through my telescope I see them as spherical too.  In fact nothing else in the Universe, regardless of which direction we look is actually flat. Apart from the rings of Saturn and they are not flat in reality.

So if I can ask a simple question then, why should the Earth be flat, who was the first person to suggest it is and why?

Surely some one on the flat Earth side can answer this?  You say you believe the Earth is flat but you don't say why?  I realise that the FE Wiki page states things like the Earth looking flat etc etc but that is neither evidence or proof.  So why should the Earth be flat?

In new documentary Behind The Curve, filmmaker Daniel J Clark gets to know the people who believe the earth is flat. ‘There are continents outside of our Antarctica that are full of the elites and the rich and the powerful, and the government wants to keep that a secret.’
 
We’ve known since around the 3rd century BC that the planet on which we live is a sphere. But for just as long, and despite an abundance of photos of the globe seen from space, one baffling theory has refused to admit defeat: the idea that the Earth is flat.
If you don't believe the earth is flat,maybe you should see this article and share your ideas:  https://docsbay.net/flat-earth-inside-the-world-s-biggest-conspiracy-theory

Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on July 30, 2019, 05:06:03 PM
Quote
It's not spinning at all. I wasn't saying they formed in the same way. How the Earth or a galaxy comes to be flat is irrelevant

What is spinning then if it isn't the Earth and what is the source and cause of that spin?

Also why do certain aspects of Flat Earth theory such as how the Earth formed become 'irrelevant' just because you haven't got an explanation for it? Does everything become irrelevant if it cannot be explained? I would have thought the question of how the Earth formed would be of interest to us regardless of whether the Earth is flat or not.  Especially given than no other solid, flat bodies have been observed elsewhere in the Universe up to now. I for one would be particularly interested to learn about the Earth formed uniquely in the Universe as a flat body as well as when.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on July 30, 2019, 06:38:49 PM
We see a spherical Sun, we see a spherical Moon and when I look at the planets through my telescope I see them as spherical too.  In fact nothing else in the Universe, regardless of which direction we look is actually flat. Apart from the rings of Saturn and they are not flat in reality.

So if I can ask a simple question then, why should the Earth be flat, who was the first person to suggest it is and why?

Surely some one on the flat Earth side can answer this?  You say you believe the Earth is flat but you don't say why?  I realise that the FE Wiki page states things like the Earth looking flat etc etc but that is neither evidence or proof.  So why should the Earth be flat?

In new documentary Behind The Curve, filmmaker Daniel J Clark gets to know the people who believe the earth is flat. ‘There are continents outside of our Antarctica that are full of the elites and the rich and the powerful, and the government wants to keep that a secret.’
 
We’ve known since around the 3rd century BC that the planet on which we live is a sphere. But for just as long, and despite an abundance of photos of the globe seen from space, one baffling theory has refused to admit defeat: the idea that the Earth is flat.
If you don't believe the earth is flat,maybe you should see this article and share your ideas:  https://docsbay.net/flat-earth-inside-the-world-s-biggest-conspiracy-theory

I'm confused.... first off, you just quoted the first few lines of the document verbatim without siting it as a quote, then you ask us to read the article that you just plagiarized stating "If you don't believe the earth is flat, <do this>", implying the article will convince someone the earth is flat when in reality if you read the article, the documentary was designed to steer people away from the idea the earth is flat.... I'm lost... what is your position here?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Roundy on August 12, 2019, 12:53:20 AM
Hmm.  My first response was deleted.  let's see if this one sticks.

RE Theory has a similarity in the way smaller objects like asteroids tend to be irregular, and the larger an object gets the more likely it is to form spherically, until you reach very large scales like galaxies, which tend to be flat;

2 problems with this theory.  1, galaxies are not solid objects, but collections of billions of individual stars.  There has never been a solid, celestial sized object observed to be anything other than (roughly) a sphere.

Yes there has. The Earth. And clearly nothing else in the observable universe even compares.

Quote
2, some galaxies are relatively flat because the billions of starts are rotating around the common center of mass.  I have not ready anything in FE theory suggesting the earth is spinning fast enough to flatten out into a disc.

It's not spinning at all. I wasn't saying they formed in the same way. How the Earth or a galaxy comes to be flat is irrelevant, the point is simply that there's an analogy to RET of not everything in the universe being spherical.

So, the earth is the size of a galaxy?  Exactly how big do you suppose galaxies are?  And as a corollary to that question, how do you arrive  at that figure, given that observational data suggesting that stars are many, many orders of magnitude larger than the observable size of the earth is apparently dismissed?


Quote
Based on the evidence we have to assume that in FET the default shape for very large objects is flat, at least until we come across another object in the universe that contradicts that assumption.

About 1/4 of the observable galaxies are spherical or elliptical (egg shaped).  So there's your contradiction.

No, you misunderstand. The Earth is much, much larger than any galaxy. Even the Milky Way is basically just a collection of motes. The Earth is the only reference we have for what shape objects might form when they are the size of the Earth, which is why we have to assume that the default shape for very large objects is flat.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 12, 2019, 07:58:33 AM
Quote
No, you misunderstand. The Earth is much, much larger than any galaxy. Even the Milky Way is basically just a collection of motes.

Really!  What is a 'mote' firstly? The only mote I know of is when people talk about a mote of dust. Secondly where do you get the data from that tells you the Earth is much larger than any galaxy?  Absurd statement.  The Milky Way is a spiral (many suggest barred spiral) galaxy with an estimated diameter of 100,000 light years.  The Earth is a rock in space of diameter just short of 8,000 miles.

We have two sources of data that can verify the size of our galaxy and the distances (and hence sizes) of other galaxies as well.

Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 12, 2019, 03:40:41 PM
Quote
No, you misunderstand. The Earth is much, much larger than any galaxy. Even the Milky Way is basically just a collection of motes.

Really!  What is a 'mote' firstly? The only mote I know of is when people talk about a mote of dust. Secondly where do you get the data from that tells you the Earth is much larger than any galaxy?  Absurd statement.  The Milky Way is a spiral (many suggest barred spiral) galaxy with an estimated diameter of 100,000 light years.  The Earth is a rock in space of diameter just short of 8,000 miles.

We have two sources of data that can verify the size of our galaxy and the distances (and hence sizes) of other galaxies as well.
Just asking a small, perhaps relevant question.

When you write the word "verify," does one interpret this to mean "established" or "proven." (i.e., without a doubt)?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 12, 2019, 03:55:05 PM
That would depend on what your definition of established or proven is.  For me and all other professional and amateur astronomers alike yes very much so. To anyone else that's up to them to decide. What data exists that proves or establishes (i.e. without a doubt) that the Earth is flat?

We have a pretty good idea about how the Sun is a member of the Milky Way galaxy, the structure and content of the Milky Way and of how the Milky Way Galaxy is a member of the local group of galaxies. So for someone to come out with a statement such as the Earth is larger than a galaxy is rather ridiculous.  I can only hope and assume it was not meant to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 13, 2019, 10:15:45 AM
That would depend on what your definition of established or proven is.  For me and all other professional and amateur astronomers alike yes very much so. To anyone else that's up to them to decide. What data exists that proves or establishes (i.e. without a doubt) that the Earth is flat?

We have a pretty good idea about how the Sun is a member of the Milky Way galaxy, the structure and content of the Milky Way and of how the Milky Way Galaxy is a member of the local group of galaxies. So for someone to come out with a statement such as the Earth is larger than a galaxy is rather ridiculous.  I can only hope and assume it was not meant to be taken seriously.
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 13, 2019, 10:24:30 AM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 13, 2019, 12:55:38 PM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: TheMaster on August 13, 2019, 12:57:55 PM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

Within my normal day-to-day life I witness the sun rise and set, and thus I do not witness any flat earth. So does humanity.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 13, 2019, 01:07:29 PM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.
Agreed. In the same way that, while living a normal, day-to-day life, we don't see bacteria.
That doesn't mean bacteria don't exist. It just means our senses are limited and are not sufficient on their own to determine the nature of reality.
But we do have other ways of determining reality. This image illustrates the folly of looking at a horizon, not seeing any curve and making conclusions about the shape of the earth:

(https://i.ibb.co/kmpZVVF/Basketball.jpg)
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 13, 2019, 01:55:43 PM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.
Agreed. In the same way that, while living a normal, day-to-day life, we don't see bacteria.
That doesn't mean bacteria don't exist. It just means our senses are limited and are not sufficient on their own to determine the nature of reality.
But we do have other ways of determining reality. This image illustrates the folly of looking at a horizon, not seeing any curve and making conclusions about the shape of the earth:



I've said it before, and I'll say it again: our senses are not proof of anything.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 13, 2019, 03:09:57 PM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

Within my normal day-to-day life I witness the sun rise and set, and thus I do not witness any flat earth. So does humanity.
The shape of the sun and what you perceive to be rising and setting has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

That is a common fallacy.

That is like stating a creature the size of an ant, possessing the visual acuity of a human, would be able to perceive the light from a flashlight a proportionate distance away as it circled above and about him.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 13, 2019, 03:11:37 PM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.
Agreed. In the same way that, while living a normal, day-to-day life, we don't see bacteria.
That doesn't mean bacteria don't exist. It just means our senses are limited and are not sufficient on their own to determine the nature of reality.
But we do have other ways of determining reality. This image illustrates the folly of looking at a horizon, not seeing any curve and making conclusions about the shape of the earth:



I've said it before, and I'll say it again: our senses are not proof of anything.
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

After that, it then becomes one of subjective interpretation of what exactly was sensed.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: TheMaster on August 13, 2019, 03:15:05 PM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

Within my normal day-to-day life I witness the sun rise and set, and thus I do not witness any flat earth. So does humanity.
The shape of the sun and what you perceive to be rising and setting has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Then explain it please. How can I see a sunset or sunrise if the earth were flat.

Or explain why it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 13, 2019, 03:33:16 PM
Quote
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

You would not expect to see the curvature of the Earth directly during normal day-to-day would you.  You can't see enough of the Earths surface from ground level. I would have thought that was obvious.

If you were a microbe sitting on a snooker ball you could not have any direct perception that you were sitting on a curved surface. On the other hand if you were a midge or a knat flying past that snooker ball from a distance of a few cm then it would look curved because you would now be able to see the surface from a far enough distance away to see that it was curved. It is a matter of proportion.  The midge analogy is comparable in scale to the ISS orbiting the Earth from 400km up.  Astronauts on the ISS can see a large enough proportion of the Earths surface to see that it is curved and indeed spherical. Of course the FE movement dismiss that along with all other direct evidence of a spherical Earth as fabrication or whatever because it goes against their assertion that the Earth is flat.

Quote
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

That's absolutely fine. But having an opinion about something doesn't make you right.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 13, 2019, 03:36:29 PM
The shape of the sun and what you perceive to be rising and setting has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Actually true. The sun could rise and set on a flat earth. But the ancient flat earth model was based on their local perspective. So they would have believed that the sun went under the disc of the earth at night and came up over the edge of it and went over it during the day. And that does match our observations of sunrise and sunset, but it means that when it's day it's day everywhere and when it's night it's night everywhere. With global transport and communication networks we now know that is not the case so that ancient flat earth model doesn't work.

Quote
That is like stating a creature the size of an ant, possessing the visual acuity of a human, would be able to perceive the light from a flashlight a proportionate distance away as it circled above and about him.

The sun rising and setting is not consistent with a sun disappearing and appearing because of the limits of our vision. It's not how perspective works. EA might work but where's the evidence for that effect existing? The sun's angular size and velocity remain constant throughout the day. When the sun sets it does so from the bottom upwards and slowly sinks. This is all consistent with a sun a fixed distance away moving in a circular path (or a rotating earth) and the sun going over the side of the edge of the earth. That could be a flat earth - but then the sun would be under the disc of the earth and it would be night everywhere. Given that we know that not to be the case another explanation which works is the sun is going over the edge of a curve.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 13, 2019, 03:45:05 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: our senses are not proof of anything.
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

After that, it then becomes one of subjective interpretation of what exactly was sensed.

How can you prove your senses are real if you can only subjectively interpret them?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: ChrisTP on August 13, 2019, 05:55:28 PM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.
Agreed. In the same way that, while living a normal, day-to-day life, we don't see bacteria.
That doesn't mean bacteria don't exist. It just means our senses are limited and are not sufficient on their own to determine the nature of reality.
But we do have other ways of determining reality. This image illustrates the folly of looking at a horizon, not seeing any curve and making conclusions about the shape of the earth:



I've said it before, and I'll say it again: our senses are not proof of anything.
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

After that, it then becomes one of subjective interpretation of what exactly was sensed.
God I'm so glad this is absolutely not true, otherwise every time I wake up to sleep paralysis and see some crazy shit it would turn out to be real.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on August 13, 2019, 06:59:25 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: our senses are not proof of anything.
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

After that, it then becomes one of subjective interpretation of what exactly was sensed.

How can you prove your senses are real if you can only subjectively interpret them?
You can't. This is just an something that every one of us must take for granted in order to have any meaningful discussion about any other topic.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on August 13, 2019, 07:01:07 PM
God I'm so glad this is absolutely not true, otherwise every time I wake up to sleep paralysis and see some crazy shit it would turn out to be real.
I think totallackey said that your senses are the only thing that is real, not everything you sense is real.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 13, 2019, 07:13:05 PM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

Within my normal day-to-day life I witness the sun rise and set, and thus I do not witness any flat earth. So does humanity.
The shape of the sun and what you perceive to be rising and setting has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Then explain it please. How can I see a sunset or sunrise if the earth were flat.

Or explain why it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
I did explain it within the analogy of ..."a creature the size of an ant, possessing the visual acuity of a human, would be able to perceive the light from a flashlight a proportionate distance away as it circled above and about him."

If that light is within range, the creature would be in light.

If not, it does not mean the light set behind a CURVED surface or appeared after rising over a CURVED surface.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 13, 2019, 07:19:59 PM
Quote
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

You would not expect to see the curvature of the Earth directly during normal day-to-day would you.  You can't see enough of the Earths surface from ground level. I would have thought that was obvious.

If you were a microbe sitting on a snooker ball you could not have any direct perception that you were sitting on a curved surface. On the other hand if you were a midge or a knat flying past that snooker ball from a distance of a few cm then it would look curved because you would now be able to see the surface from a far enough distance away to see that it was curved. It is a matter of proportion.  The midge analogy is comparable in scale to the ISS orbiting the Earth from 400km up.  Astronauts on the ISS can see a large enough proportion of the Earths surface to see that it is curved and indeed spherical. Of course the FE movement dismiss that along with all other direct evidence of a spherical Earth as fabrication or whatever because it goes against their assertion that the Earth is flat.

Quote
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

That's absolutely fine. But having an opinion about something doesn't make you right.
I believe it makes me correct in this instance.

Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?

If yes, why?

Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity or those of Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory ?

I don't believe you, or anyone else, could honestly write that.

Further, even camera shots from the ISS have been shown to present way more curve than would be mathematically expected.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 13, 2019, 07:24:56 PM
God I'm so glad this is absolutely not true, otherwise every time I wake up to sleep paralysis and see some crazy shit it would turn out to be real.
I think totallackey said that your senses are the only thing that is real, not everything you sense is real.

OK - now the philosophical discussion of what "real" is.....
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: stack on August 13, 2019, 07:53:59 PM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

Within my normal day-to-day life I witness the sun rise and set, and thus I do not witness any flat earth. So does humanity.
The shape of the sun and what you perceive to be rising and setting has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Then explain it please. How can I see a sunset or sunrise if the earth were flat.

Or explain why it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
I did explain it within the analogy of ..."a creature the size of an ant, possessing the visual acuity of a human, would be able to perceive the light from a flashlight a proportionate distance away as it circled above and about him."

If that light is within range, the creature would be in light.

If not, it does mean the light set behind a CURVED surface or appeared after rising over a CURVED surface.

A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.

(https://i.imgur.com/uMKCY2Y.jpg?1)
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: stack on August 13, 2019, 08:22:49 PM
Quote
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

You would not expect to see the curvature of the Earth directly during normal day-to-day would you.  You can't see enough of the Earths surface from ground level. I would have thought that was obvious.

If you were a microbe sitting on a snooker ball you could not have any direct perception that you were sitting on a curved surface. On the other hand if you were a midge or a knat flying past that snooker ball from a distance of a few cm then it would look curved because you would now be able to see the surface from a far enough distance away to see that it was curved. It is a matter of proportion.  The midge analogy is comparable in scale to the ISS orbiting the Earth from 400km up.  Astronauts on the ISS can see a large enough proportion of the Earths surface to see that it is curved and indeed spherical. Of course the FE movement dismiss that along with all other direct evidence of a spherical Earth as fabrication or whatever because it goes against their assertion that the Earth is flat.

Quote
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

That's absolutely fine. But having an opinion about something doesn't make you right.
I believe it makes me correct in this instance.

Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?

If yes, why?

Yes. Why not? I believe in technological advancement, engineering, math & physics.

Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity or those of Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory ?

I don't believe you, or anyone else, could honestly write that.

Big Bang Theory isn't very convincing. But for the blockbusters, I think it would be hard and getting harder by the minute. But I do know the effort involved in creating such things.
One the the FX Supervisors for 'Gravity' said in an interview, “Rendering Gravity on one computer would have taken 7000 years”. I remember reading that one 10 second scene in 'The Martian' where Matt Damen was standing outside, nothing major going on visually except for specific reflections in his visor, took 2 days to render. 

I just can't really conceive of the number of FX artists involved and the amount of computing power required to create the 1000's of hours of ISS footage out there. It's beyond my comprehension how it could be done.

Further, even camera shots from the ISS have been shown to present way more curve than would be mathematically expected.

Sure, different lenses create different optical effects. You can look up the gear used and settings for each image from the ISS. The lower the focal length the more 'roundness' you're going to get. No mystery there.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 13, 2019, 08:33:57 PM
Quote
Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?
No I can't honestly say I believe there are astronauts on the ISS but I can honestly write that I know there are. While UK astronaut Tim Peake was on the ISS I had the privilege to be part of a live feed we set up at the school where I work. We were able to communicate with astronauts onboard the ISS and ask them questions about the experiments they were performing. One of the science teachers has a relative who works at the ESA control centre where communications are made to the ISS directly.

I'm sorry that you disbelieve all this. However it is simply a case of self-denial based on your mindset.  Many aspects of modern science and technology are clearly incompatible with what the FE believe is actually true. However rather than accept at some point that they may be wrong, the FE movement simply dismiss any evidence that goes against what they believe by accusing it of being faked, covered up or whatever similar synonyms you prefer to use. In short it is easier to bury your head in the sand I guess than admit that you are wrong.

There is nothing wrong in harbouring a particular belief of course. Those of a religious mindset believe in God and as far as I am concerned if that makes they happy then it does no one any harm. Whether anyone can 'prove' the existence of God is irrelevant and unimportant. Same principle applies to FE.  Some people believe it some don't. Does it really matter?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 14, 2019, 07:08:52 AM
Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?
If yes, why?
Yes. As for why...
Because you can see the ISS from the ground. It's definitely up there. There are websites where you can find out when and where to see it.
I've even see a video from a flat earther (Jeranism, possibly?) showing the ISS doing a transit of the moon. Even he conceded it was up there.
I've seen a Shuttle launch so I know that the Space Shuttle was a thing. No, I didn't see it go all the way into space but neither did I see it land anywhere.
I've not seen a scrap of evidence that the shuttle secretly landed anywhere. I have no reason to think that the Shuttle didn't operate exactly as NASA claimed. Hundreds of people have been to space. Am I to believe they are all lying? 7 of those were "space tourists" who paid a huge sum to spend time on the ISS. Are they lying too or have they been fooled somehow? In the space race in the 60s Russia got many of the initial "firsts" then the US started pumping huge amounts of money into it and managed to overhaul them. Neither site ever called the other out as faking anything. Why wouldn't they?
Jodrell Bank in the UK was tracking the Apollo 11 mission and Luna 15, a Russian unmanned probe that crashed on to the moon not long before the Eagle landed.

https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181

Are these guys lying too?
My Satellite dish is pointing at something in the sky. I know this because a neighbour did some work on his house and the scaffolding blocked the signal, he had to move the dish for me so my TV worked again. My GPS works, I have no reason to think it works in any other way than the way I've been told.

Quote
Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity

I don't. But do you? All the "evidence" I've seen claiming that the footage is faked is from people who are clearly not experts in the field. Vague assertions from people with an agenda isn't strong evidence of fakery.

Quote
Further, even camera shots from the ISS have been shown to present way more curve than would be mathematically expected.
So what's your claim here? Someone else has explained to you about different lenses and the effects of them.
Are you claiming that NASA are smart enough to fake footage from space well enough to fool most people in the world but also dumb enough to get the curve wrong? Or did they deliberately put a fish-eye effect on their CGI to help out the conspiracy theorists? Why on earth would they do that?

Bottom line: I can't go to space right now. I can't go to Antarctica. I could go to Australia, but it's a long way. My beliefs about anything I can't directly experience have to be based on other people's accounts, as do yours. I know you're all about what you personally witness but that isn't always possible. Do you have an opinion about the Kennedy Assassination? Unless you were there, your opinion has to be based on things you've read and seen as does mine. Unless we witness an event, that's all we have. We have to look at evidence and balance of probabilities. What is your evidence that makes you think space travel isn't a thing and is all a big hoax? Powerful rockets demonstrably exist so why is it so hard to believe?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 14, 2019, 11:27:55 AM
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

Within my normal day-to-day life I witness the sun rise and set, and thus I do not witness any flat earth. So does humanity.
The shape of the sun and what you perceive to be rising and setting has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Then explain it please. How can I see a sunset or sunrise if the earth were flat.

Or explain why it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
I did explain it within the analogy of ..."a creature the size of an ant, possessing the visual acuity of a human, would be able to perceive the light from a flashlight a proportionate distance away as it circled above and about him."

If that light is within range, the creature would be in light.

If not, it does mean the light set behind a CURVED surface or appeared after rising over a CURVED surface.

A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.

(https://i.imgur.com/uMKCY2Y.jpg?1)
I will repeat the analogy, adding a little more conditions:
A proportionately sized and luminous light to that of the sun above us;
Proportionate distances to those now claimed for FE.
A creature, the size of an ant and possessing the visual acuity of a human, occupying any space on the earth, would lose complete sight of the light source above it and occupy a totally dark space, without that light rising or setting upon a curved surface.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 14, 2019, 11:34:39 AM
Quote
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

You would not expect to see the curvature of the Earth directly during normal day-to-day would you.  You can't see enough of the Earths surface from ground level. I would have thought that was obvious.

If you were a microbe sitting on a snooker ball you could not have any direct perception that you were sitting on a curved surface. On the other hand if you were a midge or a knat flying past that snooker ball from a distance of a few cm then it would look curved because you would now be able to see the surface from a far enough distance away to see that it was curved. It is a matter of proportion.  The midge analogy is comparable in scale to the ISS orbiting the Earth from 400km up.  Astronauts on the ISS can see a large enough proportion of the Earths surface to see that it is curved and indeed spherical. Of course the FE movement dismiss that along with all other direct evidence of a spherical Earth as fabrication or whatever because it goes against their assertion that the Earth is flat.

Quote
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

That's absolutely fine. But having an opinion about something doesn't make you right.
I believe it makes me correct in this instance.

Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?

If yes, why?

Yes. Why not? I believe in technological advancement, engineering, math & physics.
Fair enough.
Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity or those of Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory ?

I don't believe you, or anyone else, could honestly write that.

Big Bang Theory isn't very convincing.
Please specify the differences you see between those of Howard Wolowitz and those of the purported astronauts on the ISS that lead you to believe one is the real deal and the other is just Hollywood.
But for the blockbusters, I think it would be hard and getting harder by the minute. But I do know the effort involved in creating such things.
One the the FX Supervisors for 'Gravity' said in an interview, “Rendering Gravity on one computer would have taken 7000 years”. I remember reading that one 10 second scene in 'The Martian' where Matt Damen was standing outside, nothing major going on visually except for specific reflections in his visor, took 2 days to render. 

I just can't really conceive of the number of FX artists involved and the amount of computing power required to create the 1000's of hours of ISS footage out there. It's beyond my comprehension how it could be done.
Or, it isn't as hard as they claim and it is getting easier by the minute.

Why the need for FX "artists?" Why not just FX "artist?"

As far as "amount of computing power," I guess I need to know what you mean.

We supposedly now have more computing power in our phone than the total amount used for Apollo, correct?

Are you therefore referring to the amount of gigawatts required?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 14, 2019, 11:38:51 AM
Quote
Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?
No I can't honestly say I believe there are astronauts on the ISS but I can honestly write that I know there are. While UK astronaut Tim Peake was on the ISS I had the privilege to be part of a live feed we set up at the school where I work. We were able to communicate with astronauts onboard the ISS and ask them questions about the experiments they were performing. One of the science teachers has a relative who works at the ESA control centre where communications are made to the ISS directly.

I'm sorry that you disbelieve all this. However it is simply a case of self-denial based on your mindset.  Many aspects of modern science and technology are clearly incompatible with what the FE believe is actually true. However rather than accept at some point that they may be wrong, the FE movement simply dismiss any evidence that goes against what they believe by accusing it of being faked, covered up or whatever similar synonyms you prefer to use. In short it is easier to bury your head in the sand I guess than admit that you are wrong.

There is nothing wrong in harbouring a particular belief of course. Those of a religious mindset believe in God and as far as I am concerned if that makes they happy then it does no one any harm. Whether anyone can 'prove' the existence of God is irrelevant and unimportant. Same principle applies to FE.  Some people believe it some don't. Does it really matter?
I am of the belief that having a conversation with someone, even by live feed, does not prove that either party is in the location claimed. Even now, in writing to each other, one or both of us could write down our location and that does not prove the location.

Further, there is no specific video footage of Tim Peake on the ISS that differs from that of Howard Wolowitz while he was portrayed as being on the ISS.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: ChrisTP on August 14, 2019, 01:04:48 PM
Quote
Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?
No I can't honestly say I believe there are astronauts on the ISS but I can honestly write that I know there are. While UK astronaut Tim Peake was on the ISS I had the privilege to be part of a live feed we set up at the school where I work. We were able to communicate with astronauts onboard the ISS and ask them questions about the experiments they were performing. One of the science teachers has a relative who works at the ESA control centre where communications are made to the ISS directly.

I'm sorry that you disbelieve all this. However it is simply a case of self-denial based on your mindset.  Many aspects of modern science and technology are clearly incompatible with what the FE believe is actually true. However rather than accept at some point that they may be wrong, the FE movement simply dismiss any evidence that goes against what they believe by accusing it of being faked, covered up or whatever similar synonyms you prefer to use. In short it is easier to bury your head in the sand I guess than admit that you are wrong.

There is nothing wrong in harbouring a particular belief of course. Those of a religious mindset believe in God and as far as I am concerned if that makes they happy then it does no one any harm. Whether anyone can 'prove' the existence of God is irrelevant and unimportant. Same principle applies to FE.  Some people believe it some don't. Does it really matter?
I am of the belief that having a conversation with someone, even by live feed, does not prove that either party is in the location claimed. Even now, in writing to each other, one or both of us could write down our location and that does not prove the location.

Further, there is no specific video footage of Tim Peake on the ISS that differs from that of Howard Wolowitz while he was portrayed as being on the ISS.
The people that set up the tech used to communicate with the ISS via live feed would surely know exactly where they are getting their live feed from. Do you believe even these low level workers could be in on the massive conspiracy?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 14, 2019, 04:11:14 PM
Quote
I am of the belief that having a conversation with someone, even by live feed, does not prove that either party is in the location claimed. Even now, in writing to each other, one or both of us could write down our location and that does not prove the location.

Further, there is no specific video footage of Tim Peake on the ISS that differs from that of Howard Wolowitz while he was portrayed as being on the ISS.

And I am of the belief that it is a total waste of time having a conversation with anyone whose refuses to believe anything is real apart from perhaps the air a few inches in front of their face that they are about to breath. Even that I'm sure you will find reason to question exists. Perhaps you could post a list of things you actually accept are real?  It can't be that long. If you can find it within your means, please accept that everything I mention on here is true. I wouldn't knowingly lie or contribute anything to this conversation/discussion or whatever you want to call it that I have any reason to doubt is true and correct. Otherwise what is the point in having a discussion in the first place if you won't believe anything anyone says?

You mention about senses earlier.  Do you believe that colours are real? Because colours are not physically real. They don't physically exist in the physical world. They are just the way our senses (sight) interpret different wavelengths of light.  So in essence colours are entirely a human creation and exist only in our brains.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 14, 2019, 05:54:17 PM
A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.

(https://i.imgur.com/uMKCY2Y.jpg?1)

Stack,

That image is a wonderful concept of how the sun would never reach the horizon in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in a vacuum. Do you have a demonstration of how where the sun would appear that even makes the slightest attempt at factoring in any sort of refraction among the layers of the atmosphere?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 14, 2019, 06:19:23 PM
The people that set up the tech used to communicate with the ISS via live feed would surely know exactly where they are getting their live feed from. Do you believe even these low level workers could be in on the massive conspiracy?
The people certainly do set up the tech. But that doesn't mean the live feed originates from the ISS. See my statement regarding no visually detectable difference between supposed ISS feeds and the fictional Howard Wolowitz.

Massive conspiracy? Do conspiracies not exist?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 14, 2019, 06:27:36 PM
Quote
I am of the belief that having a conversation with someone, even by live feed, does not prove that either party is in the location claimed. Even now, in writing to each other, one or both of us could write down our location and that does not prove the location.

Further, there is no specific video footage of Tim Peake on the ISS that differs from that of Howard Wolowitz while he was portrayed as being on the ISS.

And I am of the belief that it is a total waste of time having a conversation with anyone whose refuses to believe anything is real apart from perhaps the air a few inches in front of their face that they are about to breath. Even that I'm sure you will find reason to question exists. Perhaps you could post a list of things you actually accept are real?  It can't be that long. If you can find it within your means, please accept that everything I mention on here is true. I wouldn't knowingly lie or contribute anything to this conversation/discussion or whatever you want to call it that I have any reason to doubt is true and correct. Otherwise what is the point in having a discussion in the first place if you won't believe anything anyone says?

You mention about senses earlier.  Do you believe that colours are real? Because colours are not physically real. They don't physically exist in the physical world. They are just the way our senses (sight) interpret different wavelengths of light.  So in essence colours are entirely a human creation and exist only in our brains.
Where did I deny your conversation?

I only question your ability to know the actual placement of those on the other end.

You have conversations on a cell phone, perhaps even video calls, but you cannot truly know where the other participant is at the time.

I believe your story and I know you believe your story.

So, having seen a purported live feed, please, if you can, describe the salient differences between that live feed and the scenes of Wolowitz on the ISS.

I have seen both and could not tell a lick of difference between the two.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 14, 2019, 06:29:26 PM
Just out of interest have you ever used a telescope to observe the ISS as it passes over you location? I'm not talking about watching videos posted on YouTube produced by many, many amateur astronomers around the world. I'm talking about you actually seeing the ISS, solar panels and all with your eyes through a telescope?   I have and that is one reason why I am personally quite confident that the ISS is a real thing.


The reason why I am quite confident that the link we established was real and genuine and coming from the ISS directly is because as I said in my post, I have a colleague who in turn knows someone who works at the ESA control centre where they have been communicating directly with the ISS and all the astronauts that have ever been on it since it was first established. We could hear audio and see the video in real time. This was not a random thing. It was arranged specially for us. We were extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to have this link up.  No doubts whatsoever that it was genuine.  If you want to disbelieve it then that's up to you.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: stack on August 14, 2019, 07:30:15 PM
Quote
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

You would not expect to see the curvature of the Earth directly during normal day-to-day would you.  You can't see enough of the Earths surface from ground level. I would have thought that was obvious.

If you were a microbe sitting on a snooker ball you could not have any direct perception that you were sitting on a curved surface. On the other hand if you were a midge or a knat flying past that snooker ball from a distance of a few cm then it would look curved because you would now be able to see the surface from a far enough distance away to see that it was curved. It is a matter of proportion.  The midge analogy is comparable in scale to the ISS orbiting the Earth from 400km up.  Astronauts on the ISS can see a large enough proportion of the Earths surface to see that it is curved and indeed spherical. Of course the FE movement dismiss that along with all other direct evidence of a spherical Earth as fabrication or whatever because it goes against their assertion that the Earth is flat.

Quote
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

That's absolutely fine. But having an opinion about something doesn't make you right.
I believe it makes me correct in this instance.

Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?

If yes, why?

Yes. Why not? I believe in technological advancement, engineering, math & physics.
Fair enough.
Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity or those of Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory ?

I don't believe you, or anyone else, could honestly write that.

Big Bang Theory isn't very convincing.
Please specify the differences you see between those of Howard Wolowitz and those of the purported astronauts on the ISS that lead you to believe one is the real deal and the other is just Hollywood.

I don't watch BBT, but looked up some clips yesterday of the Howard character in space. I didn't see anything like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k_vORz5cE

But for the blockbusters, I think it would be hard and getting harder by the minute. But I do know the effort involved in creating such things.
One the the FX Supervisors for 'Gravity' said in an interview, “Rendering Gravity on one computer would have taken 7000 years”. I remember reading that one 10 second scene in 'The Martian' where Matt Damen was standing outside, nothing major going on visually except for specific reflections in his visor, took 2 days to render. 

I just can't really conceive of the number of FX artists involved and the amount of computing power required to create the 1000's of hours of ISS footage out there. It's beyond my comprehension how it could be done.
Or, it isn't as hard as they claim and it is getting easier by the minute.

Why the need for FX "artists?" Why not just FX "artist?"

Sit through the credits next time you watch a movie like The Martian or Gravity. There are a multitude of various FX houses involved each with paragraphs of names credited with working on the effects.

As far as "amount of computing power," I guess I need to know what you mean.

We supposedly now have more computing power in our phone than the total amount used for Apollo, correct?

Are you therefore referring to the amount of gigawatts required?

It's all about rendering. The rotoscopers, shaders, colorists, background/foreground, motion capture, etc., on and on artists all do their part then a scene/clip needs to be rendered. So all of that is sent off to a server farm of racks of CPU's to do so. Like I wrote, that one 10 second scene in The Martian took 2 days to render out. Now extrapolate that out to a 2 hour movie. and for Gravity, there was so much CGI, that's why he said it would have taken 7000 years to render it all out on one computer.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: stack on August 15, 2019, 01:13:49 AM
A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.

(https://i.imgur.com/uMKCY2Y.jpg?1)

Stack,

That image is a wonderful concept of how the sun would never reach the horizon in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in a vacuum. Do you have a demonstration of how where the sun would appear that even makes the slightest attempt at factoring in any sort of refraction among the layers of the atmosphere?

I'm not sure why you assume a vacuum. But sure, the by far most common atmospheric refractive effect we observe at sunset and sunrise is that the Sun appears just a smidge higher than it actually is which can cause sunrise to occur a minute or two early and sunset a minute or two late. In essence pushing the sun observably higher above a horizon rather than lower, which I suspect, the latter is what you're looking for. So that would look like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/9sv4Xl5.jpg?1)

So why don’t you tell us what sort of atmospheric refractive effect would need to be in play for every sunset observed by humans where the FE Sun would drop down 3000 miles to appear to go below the horizon, hide it there for 12 hours, then release it so that it can appear to rise 3000 miles back up into the sky behind me at sunrise.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 10:36:08 AM
Just out of interest have you ever used a telescope to observe the ISS as it passes over you location? I'm not talking about watching videos posted on YouTube produced by many, many amateur astronomers around the world. I'm talking about you actually seeing the ISS, solar panels and all with your eyes through a telescope?   I have and that is one reason why I am personally quite confident that the ISS is a real thing.
No, but that doesn't mean there isn't an object overhead resembling the ISS circling above the flat earth plane.

I do not deny there is such an object.
The reason why I am quite confident that the link we established was real and genuine and coming from the ISS directly is because as I said in my post, I have a colleague who in turn knows someone who works at the ESA control centre where they have been communicating directly with the ISS and all the astronauts that have ever been on it since it was first established. We could hear audio and see the video in real time. This was not a random thing. It was arranged specially for us. We were extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to have this link up.  No doubts whatsoever that it was genuine.  If you want to disbelieve it then that's up to you.
Like I wrote earlier, I have no doubt you were a participant.

I have no doubt a link to somewhere was established, just like the link here.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 10:42:37 AM
I don't watch BBT, but looked up some clips yesterday of the Howard character in space. I didn't see anything like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k_vORz5cE
Hasn't there been CGI rendered water before?

It seems this has been around a while.

https://www.autodesk.com/redshift/moana-animation/
Sit through the credits next time you watch a movie like The Martian or Gravity. There are a multitude of various FX houses involved each with paragraphs of names credited with working on the effects.
Yeah, there are...

Putting people to work because they are your friends is common practice.

As far as "amount of computing power," I guess I need to know what you mean.

We supposedly now have more computing power in our phone than the total amount used for Apollo, correct?

Are you therefore referring to the amount of gigawatts required?
It's all about rendering. The rotoscopers, shaders, colorists, background/foreground, motion capture, etc., on and on artists all do their part then a scene/clip needs to be rendered. So all of that is sent off to a server farm of racks of CPU's to do so. Like I wrote, that one 10 second scene in The Martian took 2 days to render out. Now extrapolate that out to a 2 hour movie. and for Gravity, there was so much CGI, that's why he said it would have taken 7000 years to render it all out on one computer.
If it was limited to one server farm, perhaps.

There are many server farms.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 15, 2019, 11:54:30 AM
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 12:18:29 PM
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.

If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: ChrisTP on August 15, 2019, 01:26:38 PM
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.

If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.
IMO there's no distinguishable difference between you and non-human text. I guess this means you don't exist. Solid evidence right?

Anyway there is a difference, you can look up the actors names from the big bang theory show. Astronauts aren't publicly listed or acknowledged as actors, instead it's a career they've years trained for.

There's a sure way to find out the truth... Become an astronaut. Do something instead of crying fake at everything you can't see 10 feet in front of you. I mean heck I've never been to Japan but I know the place exists. I've never met a Samurai and never will but I know they were a thing. I can't gain access to military bases but I know they have military staff inside. I've never been to space but I know astronauts have. I've not been on the ISS but I know it exists.

But hey, how could you possibly know if you haven't been there or seen it with your own eyes right? Oh yea photos and real people accounts of it... Just like everything else you haven't seen for yourself.

I think people being on the ISS is more plausible than billions of people being tricked into thinking the earth is a completely different shape and that space travel doesn't exist. And if the earth somehow isn't spheroid, it doesn't default to being a flat disk, what stops it from being every other shape? Why should the earth be flat? I mean if you can take a close up of a basketball and see a lumpy but overall flat surface, does a basketball default to a flat disk for an ant?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 15, 2019, 02:56:25 PM
There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.
That is called evidence.

I'd dispute they're indistinguishable but I'd admit I'm not an expert in this area. But OK, let's agree that CGI is very good these days and can pretty much be used to fake anything.
But that is NOT evidence of fakery, it's just stating that it would be possible to fake it. That's very different to presenting evidence that footage from space is being faked.
Evidence would be some detailed analysis of the footage indicating it's CGI from some expert in the field.
Or a whistleblower from the team who do the CGI or the "actors/astronauts", or the camera men, costume department, set builders etc.
Or finding some evidence that the space shuttle really secretly landed somewhere while it was supposed to be in space and then took off from that place to arrive on cue at the time and place it was supposed to return from space (if that's what you believe the Shuttle did)
Given the number of people of people who have been to space (over 550 from over 35 countries so far, 7 of whom were space tourists) and the number of people who would have had to be in on it, it's weird we've have no whistle blowers so far.

Quote
If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.

What makes it hard for you to believe it isn't what NASA and the Russians claim it is?
If your line of reasoning is "I believe the earth to be flat, therefore the ISS can't be what they claim it to be"
Then I would suggest that is faulty logic. The ISS a chance for you to examine your FE beliefs - if it is what they claim then the earth cannot be flat. So isn't it worth investigating the matter rather than just dismissing it as fake because if it isn't then it would change your world view? Every space mission, ever rocket launch is another chance for you to examine your beliefs.
As I said, rocket technology has been available since the 1940s, why is it such a reach to believe that missions to space, whether manned or not, are possible?
The technology which makes this possible is not new and you surely don't dispute rockets exist? I've said on here before, I saw a Shuttle launch myself.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 03:35:23 PM
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.

If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.
IMO there's no distinguishable difference between you and non-human text. I guess this means you don't exist. Solid evidence right?

Anyway there is a difference, you can look up the actors names from the big bang theory show. Astronauts aren't publicly listed or acknowledged as actors, instead it's a career they've years trained for.
Are you stating that actors do not train or that being an astronaut and an actor somehow results in different abilities to portray supposed weightless characteristics on screen?

In regard to your writing analogy, how does that relate to a moving picture on screen?
There's a sure way to find out the truth... Become an astronaut. Do something instead of crying fake at everything you can't see 10 feet in front of you. I mean heck I've never been to Japan but I know the place exists. I've never met a Samurai and never will but I know they were a thing. I can't gain access to military bases but I know they have military staff inside. I've never been to space but I know astronauts have. I've not been on the ISS but I know it exists.
I don't cry fake fake at everything I can see 10 feet in front of me.

That is unsubstantiated.

I could now write you believe everything you hear, but that merely casts a worthless stone your way.

I only wrote it to demonstrate exactly the falsehood of what you wrote.
But hey, how could you possibly know if you haven't been there or seen it with your own eyes right? Oh yea photos and real people accounts of it... Just like everything else you haven't seen for yourself.
I know The Big Bang Theoryis a television show.

I know the actors Jim Parsons, Johnny Galecki, Kaley Cuoco, Simon Helberg, and Kunal Nayyar, appear on the show. Real people, real accounts of their being a television show and there was a series of video episodes accounting for time that the real person, Simon Helberg , portraying Howard Wolowitz, spent in space aboard the ISS.

A real person portraying a fictional character spending fictional time in fictional space aboard the fictional ISS, all captured on video.

That admitted fiction looks NO DIFFERENT than the SUPPOSED NON-FICTIONAL VIDEO of real people on what is supposed to be the real ISS.
I think people being on the ISS is more plausible than billions of people being tricked into thinking the earth is a completely different shape and that space travel doesn't exist. And if the earth somehow isn't spheroid, it doesn't default to being a flat disk, what stops it from being every other shape? Why should the earth be flat? I mean if you can take a close up of a basketball and see a lumpy but overall flat surface, does a basketball default to a flat disk for an ant?
Well, there isn't any ancient culture claiming the earth to be a square or a rectangle, for one.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 03:45:41 PM
There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.
That is called evidence.

I'd dispute they're indistinguishable but I'd admit I'm not an expert in this area. But OK, let's agree that CGI is very good these days and can pretty much be used to fake anything.
But that is NOT evidence of fakery, it's just stating that it would be possible to fake it. That's very different to presenting evidence that footage from space is being faked.
Actually, what I presented is Occam's Razor.

You know, accepting the plausible explanation.
Evidence would be some detailed analysis of the footage indicating it's CGI from some expert in the field.
Or a whistleblower from the team who do the CGI or the "actors/astronauts", or the camera men, costume department, set builders etc.
There are more instances of cases involving the use of wires and green screen.
Or finding some evidence that the space shuttle really secretly landed somewhere while it was supposed to be in space and then took off from that place to arrive on cue at the time and place it was supposed to return from space (if that's what you believe the Shuttle did).
There is video evidence of the shuttle using regular jet engines.
Given the number of people of people who have been to space (over 550 from over 35 countries so far, 7 of whom were space tourists) and the number of people who would have had to be in on it, it's weird we've have no whistle blowers so far.
Yeah, weird but not beyond plausibility.
Quote
If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.
What makes it hard for you to believe it isn't what NASA and the Russians claim it is?
I generally don't trust government on the whole.
If your line of reasoning is "I believe the earth to be flat, therefore the ISS can't be what they claim it to be"
Then I would suggest that is faulty logic.
I would agree that is faulty logic.
The ISS a chance for you to examine your FE beliefs - if it is what they claim then the earth cannot be flat. So isn't it worth investigating the matter rather than just dismissing it as fake because if it isn't then it would change your world view? Every space mission, ever rocket launch is another chance for you to examine your beliefs.
I don't believe there is a vacuum sitting on top of a pressurized atmoplane.

Makes no sense.
As I said, rocket technology has been available since the 1940s, why is it such a reach to believe that missions to space, whether manned or not, are possible?
The technology which makes this possible is not new and you surely don't dispute rockets exist? I've said on here before, I saw a Shuttle launch myself.
Rockets exist.

They can reach great heights.

They demonstrably do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 15, 2019, 03:57:52 PM
Quote
If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.

To repeat the question I posted earlier... have you personally ever observed the ISS through a telescope or even binoculars during a pass?  If you have then you will see something that looks remarkably like an artificial satellite. Definite structure and also some large solar panels. The solar panels are bronze coloured due to the material they are made from. Many people that I know don't even realise you can see the ISS with the naked eye. However it can now match the planet Venus in terms of brightness when it passes directly or near to directly overhead.

So using my own senses to form my interpretation of reality (as you like to do) then I would come to the conclusion that it is an artificial satellite. And a rather large one too!
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Zonk on August 15, 2019, 04:45:33 PM
Quote
Actually, what I presented is Occam's Razor.

Actually, from what I've seen here, most FE arguments present the exact opposite of Occam's razor.  Occam's razor says that the millions of people who have been to space, have been to the South Pole,  have flown military or commercial aircraft above 35,000, and all the people who support those missions,  are telling the truth, or at least the overwhelming majority are.  FE argument depends on all of those people lying about and being part of the conspiracy to over up the truth.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: TomInAustin on August 15, 2019, 05:59:03 PM

Rockets exist.

They can reach great heights.

They demonstrably do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so.

Please go ahead and demonstrate how they "do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so".

Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 15, 2019, 08:06:00 PM
Please go ahead and demonstrate how they "do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so".
Yes, I was interested in that comment. Care to elaborate, lackey?
Also, I'd like to respond to more of your post but you really do suck at using the quote feature, lackey. Can you edit your post and sort that out so I can see what I'm supposed to respond to.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 15, 2019, 10:04:28 PM
According to my understanding of Occams Razor... it states

"You've probably heard it before: The simplest explanation is usually the right one."

In which case is it not true to say that the modern heliocentric model of the solar system for example is far more simple account for the planetary movement we observe than the ever elaborate versions of the Ptplemy geocentric model with all its epicycles?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: stack on August 16, 2019, 12:57:02 AM
I don't watch BBT, but looked up some clips yesterday of the Howard character in space. I didn't see anything like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9k_vORz5cE

Hasn't there been CGI rendered water before?

It seems this has been around a while.

https://www.autodesk.com/redshift/moana-animation/

Yep, water and hair are the holy grail of Movie FX (Oh yeah, and 'eyes'). Titanic made major breakthroughs with water. Monsters Inc made major breakthroughs with hair. Still, the level of artistry, manpower and computing power is staggering to make it look so real. But I'll get to that in a second.

Sit through the credits next time you watch a movie like The Martian or Gravity. There are a multitude of various FX houses involved each with paragraphs of names credited with working on the effects.
Yeah, there are...

Putting people to work because they are your friends is common practice.

Now you're just totally making stuff up. What do you mean "Putting people to work because they are your friends is common practice."? What do you know about whether or not all those names credited were actually contributors or not. Do you have evidence they weren't? Or are you just saying so?

From one of the FX houses that worked on 'Gravity':

"What resources did you need?

It was a large show for us. We worked on it for just over 3 years, and at least 400 people worked on it during that period."

As far as "amount of computing power," I guess I need to know what you mean.

We supposedly now have more computing power in our phone than the total amount used for Apollo, correct?

Are you therefore referring to the amount of gigawatts required?
It's all about rendering. The rotoscopers, shaders, colorists, background/foreground, motion capture, etc., on and on artists all do their part then a scene/clip needs to be rendered. So all of that is sent off to a server farm of racks of CPU's to do so. Like I wrote, that one 10 second scene in The Martian took 2 days to render out. Now extrapolate that out to a 2 hour movie. and for Gravity, there was so much CGI, that's why he said it would have taken 7000 years to render it all out on one computer.
If it was limited to one server farm, perhaps.

There are many server farms.

You know not of what you speak, you don't really get it and are just making up stuff. Again, from Martin Preston from Framestore (FX House) about the challenges they encountered with Gravity:

"In the render crunch we had about 15000 cores working on the show, and about 600 Terabytes of disk space serving all of that!"

From Pixar's Monsters University 2013:

"Inside the building is a data center full of humming servers — double the size that the company (Pixar) used in the past — that would be considered one of the top 25 supercomputers in the world. The 2,000 computers have more than 24,000 cores...Even with all of that computing might, it still takes 29 hours to render a single frame of Monsters University, according to supervising technical director Sanjay Bakshi...With all of those CPUs that Pixar did have, it took a couple of years to render."

It takes an army or artists and technology to render even a singe frame where there are usually 24 to 60 frames per second. It's truly a mind-boggling the effort.

Your whole thing is that convincing CGI can be done and it's super fast and easy to do so. It's not. As well, you're premise that it can be done is somehow evidence of fakery. Apply the same logic to war movies. All the battle scenes and such look pretty convincing. Does that mean battles in real life are faked? I really am not following your logic on any of this.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 16, 2019, 10:31:41 AM
Quote
Actually, what I presented is Occam's Razor.

Actually, from what I've seen here, most FE arguments present the exact opposite of Occam's razor.  Occam's razor says that the millions of people who have been to space, have been to the South Pole,  have flown military or commercial aircraft above 35,000, and all the people who support those missions,  are telling the truth, or at least the overwhelming majority are.  FE argument depends on all of those people lying about and being part of the conspiracy to over up the truth.
536 people have reportedly been to space.

Not millions.

FE argument does not even rely on these issues.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 16, 2019, 10:35:42 AM
Quote
If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.

To repeat the question I posted earlier... have you personally ever observed the ISS through a telescope or even binoculars during a pass?
No, I haven't. I have seen photos.
If you have then you will see something that looks remarkably like an artificial satellite. Definite structure and also some large solar panels. The solar panels are bronze coloured due to the material they are made from. Many people that I know don't even realise you can see the ISS with the naked eye. However it can now match the planet Venus in terms of brightness when it passes directly or near to directly overhead.
I agree there is something circling above us.

It comes into sight then disappears from sight, just like airplanes.
So using my own senses to form my interpretation of reality (as you like to do) then I would come to the conclusion that it is an artificial satellite. And a rather large one too!
We agree it is circling above us.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 16, 2019, 10:40:13 AM

Rockets exist.

They can reach great heights.

They demonstrably do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so.

Please go ahead and demonstrate how they "do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so".
Look at the video recordings.

Those things are not traveling anywhere near the speeds reported.

I have seen tests of both the F-15 and F-18 at PAX, witnessing missile launches from both.

I have witnessed model rocket launches in the desert.

None of these reported space rockets are traveling at near the rate of speed of the things I have personally witnessed.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 16, 2019, 10:42:27 AM
Please go ahead and demonstrate how they "do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so".
Yes, I was interested in that comment. Care to elaborate, lackey?
Also, I'd like to respond to more of your post but you really do suck at using the quote feature, lackey. Can you edit your post and sort that out so I can see what I'm supposed to respond to.
Yeah, I am not as good at the quote feature as you.

Sorry.

Thanks for letting me know.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 16, 2019, 10:45:05 AM
According to my understanding of Occams Razor... it states

"You've probably heard it before: The simplest explanation is usually the right one."

In which case is it not true to say that the modern heliocentric model of the solar system for example is far more simple account for the planetary movement we observe than the ever elaborate versions of the Ptplemy geocentric model with all its epicycles?
You are correct.

The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

That means, given the simple effort it takes to make CGI, even for a weekly television program, that is the easiest one to accept.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: ChrisTP on August 16, 2019, 11:21:23 AM
According to my understanding of Occams Razor... it states

"You've probably heard it before: The simplest explanation is usually the right one."

In which case is it not true to say that the modern heliocentric model of the solar system for example is far more simple account for the planetary movement we observe than the ever elaborate versions of the Ptplemy geocentric model with all its epicycles?
You are correct.

The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

That means, given the simple effort it takes to make CGI, even for a weekly television program, that is the easiest one to accept.
It's not simple effort to make CGI and weekly tv shows aren't the same as live feeds. if your simplest explanations are full of holes it's probably not the simplest explanation. Yes, "CGI" is a simple explanation but it doesn't explain anything in actual detail and ignores the impracticality of creating CGI instead of just using real life.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: TomInAustin on August 16, 2019, 02:53:04 PM

Rockets exist.

They can reach great heights.

They demonstrably do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so.

Please go ahead and demonstrate how they "do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so".
Look at the video recordings.

Those things are not traveling anywhere near the speeds reported.

I have seen tests of both the F-15 and F-18 at PAX, witnessing missile launches from both.

I have witnessed model rocket launches in the desert.

None of these reported space rockets are traveling at near the rate of speed of the things I have personally witnessed.

A model rockets thrust to weight ratio is off the charts compared to a full-size orbital launch vehicle.  The g force experienced by a model rocket would kill a human and destroy large structures.  There is also the problem of aerodynamic forces while a vehicle is deep in the atmosphere.  They wait to attain speeds until they are high enough to be in thinner air and thus less drag.   Its a delicate balance between drag, mass, and thrust to achieve the velocity needed to reach orbit.

As for missiles launched off of aircraft, they are designed to reach maximum velocity in as short a time as possible.  You are not comparing apples to apples.

Let's use your F-15 and F-18 example.  While both are capable of supersonic flight, look at the take-off roll.  They don't go from zero to mach 1 instantly.  In fact, many fast cars can out-accelerate them for the first few hundred feet.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 16, 2019, 03:37:31 PM
Look at the video recordings.

Those things are not traveling anywhere near the speeds reported.
Can you give an example? The rocket/shuttle launch videos I've seen generally focus on the rocket/shuttle and obviously zoom in as they get further away.
As they get high the background is just sky, I've no idea how you think you can assess how fast they've travelling without context.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: TomInAustin on August 16, 2019, 04:46:26 PM
Look at the video recordings.

Those things are not traveling anywhere near the speeds reported.
Can you give an example? The rocket/shuttle launch videos I've seen generally focus on the rocket/shuttle and obviously zoom in as they get further away.
As they get high the background is just sky, I've no idea how you think you can assess how fast they've travelling without context.

My guess is he thinks a huge multi-ton launch vehicle should leave the pad like an Estes rocket.   Or how an air to air missile leaves a fighter jet.   
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 16, 2019, 05:10:33 PM
Interesting.
The space shuttle took 8 and a half minutes to reach about 8,000m/s. That’s a long time to accelerate, if the acceleration were constant it would be less than 2g. As it is, when the shuttle is on the pad, that’s when it’s mass is highest so the acceleration initially the lowest. There’s a table here which shows the speed and acceleration over time

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/466711main_AP_ST_ShuttleAscent.pdf

It never has to go over 3g to reach the speed needed for orbit simply because it accelerates over a fairly long time.

Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 17, 2019, 05:18:43 AM

I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

After that, it then becomes one of subjective interpretation of what exactly was sensed.

So then there is no objective reality and RE is as true as FE.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 17, 2019, 05:58:26 AM
A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.

(https://i.imgur.com/uMKCY2Y.jpg?1)

Stack,

That image is a wonderful concept of how the sun would never reach the horizon in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in a vacuum. Do you have a demonstration of how where the sun would appear that even makes the slightest attempt at factoring in any sort of refraction among the layers of the atmosphere?

How do you know refraction even exists?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 17, 2019, 06:21:46 AM
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.


That is a classic example of circular reasoning, with a big heaping helping of hypocrisy thrown in.  You have to know that movie versions are fake to know that ISS versions are fake...but you only "know" the movie versions are fake because that is what Big Movie wants you to believe. For all you know they actually went into space and filmed it in real time because it was cheaper and just said it was done on computers so everyone would think they were so talented.  You weren't there to watch them create the pictures, so by your logic, you can't really know they are fabricated
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 17, 2019, 06:30:23 AM
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.

If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.
IMO there's no distinguishable difference between you and non-human text. I guess this means you don't exist. Solid evidence right?

Anyway there is a difference, you can look up the actors names from the big bang theory show. Astronauts aren't publicly listed or acknowledged as actors, instead it's a career they've years trained for.
Are you stating that actors do not train or that being an astronaut and an actor somehow results in different abilities to portray supposed weightless characteristics on screen?

In regard to your writing analogy, how does that relate to a moving picture on screen?
There's a sure way to find out the truth... Become an astronaut. Do something instead of crying fake at everything you can't see 10 feet in front of you. I mean heck I've never been to Japan but I know the place exists. I've never met a Samurai and never will but I know they were a thing. I can't gain access to military bases but I know they have military staff inside. I've never been to space but I know astronauts have. I've not been on the ISS but I know it exists.
I don't cry fake fake at everything I can see 10 feet in front of me.

That is unsubstantiated.

I could now write you believe everything you hear, but that merely casts a worthless stone your way.

I only wrote it to demonstrate exactly the falsehood of what you wrote.
But hey, how could you possibly know if you haven't been there or seen it with your own eyes right? Oh yea photos and real people accounts of it... Just like everything else you haven't seen for yourself.
I know The Big Bang Theoryis a television show.

I know the actors Jim Parsons, Johnny Galecki, Kaley Cuoco, Simon Helberg, and Kunal Nayyar, appear on the show. Real people, real accounts of their being a television show and there was a series of video episodes accounting for time that the real person, Simon Helberg , portraying Howard Wolowitz, spent in space aboard the ISS.

A real person portraying a fictional character spending fictional time in fictional space aboard the fictional ISS, all captured on video.

That admitted fiction looks NO DIFFERENT than the SUPPOSED NON-FICTIONAL VIDEO of real people on what is supposed to be the real ISS.
I think people being on the ISS is more plausible than billions of people being tricked into thinking the earth is a completely different shape and that space travel doesn't exist. And if the earth somehow isn't spheroid, it doesn't default to being a flat disk, what stops it from being every other shape? Why should the earth be flat? I mean if you can take a close up of a basketball and see a lumpy but overall flat surface, does a basketball default to a flat disk for an ant?
Well, there isn't any ancient culture claiming the earth to be a square or a rectangle, for one.

Do you know these people, met them, gone to a taping of the show?  Unless you have, then by your logic you can't really know anything about what you claim to know.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on August 17, 2019, 11:27:54 PM
How do you know refraction even exists?
Because I paid attention in physics class in high school. I think pretty much every school is going to do an experimental demonstration of snell's law, I guess you missed out.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 18, 2019, 12:25:28 AM
Because I paid attention in physics class in high school. I think pretty much every school is going to do an experimental demonstration of snell's law, I guess you missed out.

So then you trust science, when it is convenient and confirms what you already believe.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: jerinr1 on August 18, 2019, 12:34:52 PM
If you are asking for FET evidence that the earth is flat, a good place to start would be the wiki in this site.

If you are asking what motives bring people to believe that the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence against it, I could think of at least two:
- Religious convictions. Some passages of the Bible seem to suggest that the earth is flat or fixed to a position.
- Appeal of conspiracy theories. That would be the psychological explanation.


Kindly quote the verse or the chapter where the Earth is mentioned to be flat in the Bible. Nowhere has it mentioned that the Earth is flat.

Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 01:13:38 PM
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.


That is a classic example of circular reasoning, with a big heaping helping of hypocrisy thrown in.  You have to know that movie versions are fake to know that ISS versions are fake...but you only "know" the movie versions are fake because that is what Big Movie wants you to believe. For all you know they actually went into space and filmed it in real time because it was cheaper and just said it was done on computers so everyone would think they were so talented.  You weren't there to watch them create the pictures, so by your logic, you can't really know they are fabricated
Do you know these people, met them, gone to a taping of the show?  Unless you have, then by your logic you can't really know anything about what you claim to know.
So, you have personally been to a point in outer space and know first hand that it exists as depicted on screen, regardless whether self-proclaimed fictional portrayal or non-fictional portrayal.

I really don't think you have a valid point here.

I do not need to know the people involved. I need only to provide the reported names and what I have seen.I have done that for both the reportedly fictional and reportedly non-fictional video presentations of people on the ISS.

It is all fake is my point, so no...no circular reasoning...pretty linear thinking...
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 01:19:00 PM
If you are asking for FET evidence that the earth is flat, a good place to start would be the wiki in this site.

If you are asking what motives bring people to believe that the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence against it, I could think of at least two:
- Religious convictions. Some passages of the Bible seem to suggest that the earth is flat or fixed to a position.
- Appeal of conspiracy theories. That would be the psychological explanation.


Kindly quote the verse or the chapter where the Earth is mentioned to be flat in the Bible. Nowhere has it mentioned that the Earth is flat.
He has not written the Bible mentioned the Earth is flat.

He wrote the Bible seemed to "suggest," the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 19, 2019, 02:16:21 PM
If you are asking for FET evidence that the earth is flat, a good place to start would be the wiki in this site.

If you are asking what motives bring people to believe that the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence against it, I could think of at least two:
- Religious convictions. Some passages of the Bible seem to suggest that the earth is flat or fixed to a position.
- Appeal of conspiracy theories. That would be the psychological explanation.


Kindly quote the verse or the chapter where the Earth is mentioned to be flat in the Bible. Nowhere has it mentioned that the Earth is flat.
He has not written the Bible mentioned the Earth is flat.

He wrote the Bible seemed to "suggest," the Earth is flat.

Well, where does the bible seem to suggest the earth is flat?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 19, 2019, 03:05:35 PM


Quote
So, you have personally been to a point in outer space and know first hand that it exists as depicted on screen, regardless whether self-proclaimed fictional portrayal or non-fictional portrayal.

I really don't think you have a valid point here.

I do not need to know the people involved. I need only to provide the reported names and what I have seen.I have done that for both the reportedly fictional and reportedly non-fictional video presentations of people on the ISS.

It is all fake is my point, so no...no circular reasoning...pretty linear thinking...

So I have to personally go to space and validate the accuracy instead of relying on what I have told, but you don't.  I can't take what is claimed at face value, but you can.  If you don't know the people who claim to have made the CGI or witnessed them doing it, you don't know what they did any more than I can know what space looks like without going there.  Quite a double standard, don't you think?

And yes, your logic is the very definition of circular...you can't know something is true, unless you already know its true.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 03:39:32 PM


Quote
So, you have personally been to a point in outer space and know first hand that it exists as depicted on screen, regardless whether self-proclaimed fictional portrayal or non-fictional portrayal.

I really don't think you have a valid point here.

I do not need to know the people involved. I need only to provide the reported names and what I have seen.I have done that for both the reportedly fictional and reportedly non-fictional video presentations of people on the ISS.

It is all fake is my point, so no...no circular reasoning...pretty linear thinking...

So I have to personally go to space and validate the accuracy instead of relying on what I have told, but you don't.  I can't take what is claimed at face value, but you can.  If you don't know the people who claim to have made the CGI or witnessed them doing it, you don't know what they did any more than I can know what space looks like without going there.  Quite a double standard, don't you think?

And yes, your logic is the very definition of circular...you can't know something is true, unless you already know its true.
Let me write it out again, for perhaps further clarity.

I know and you know that some people in the television industry produced an entertainment show entitled The Big Bang Theory. I know and you know the show presented, according to what the producers stated, were fictional representations of the character Howard Wolowitz, performing in the role of scientist/astronaut onboard the ISS, on the television show.

I know and you know that NASA has produced, according to NASA statements, audio/video feeds from astronauts onboard the ISS.

I have not stated that I know either is real or fake.

I have stated that given the undetectable difference I see between the two, and given we have the ability to produce such video from the relative comfort of an office, I believe the simplest explanation is that both are fake.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 19, 2019, 03:45:08 PM
How do you know refraction even exists?

First off I don't know that it exists. It's impossible to know something is 100% true. I BELIEVE it exists because evidence has been presented that it does exist. I've personally experienced it on many occasions.


Here's evidence that supports that refraction does exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCZnbSqIznY
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 19, 2019, 04:19:43 PM
Quote
First off I don't know that it exists. It's impossible to know something is 100% true.

So what criteria or conditions need to exist then for you to say you actually know something?  The fact that I have been using refracting telescopes which rely on the concept known as refraction of light to work gives me a clue about its existence.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 19, 2019, 04:35:48 PM
Quote
First off I don't know that it exists. It's impossible to know something is 100% true.

So what criteria or conditions need to exist then for you to say you actually know something?  The fact that I have been using refracting telescopes which rely on the concept known as refraction of light to work gives me a clue about its existence.

Philosophy is no place for pedantry..... philosophically there is no way to "know" anything. Practically, we do know things, and we must live our lives based on this knowledge or you will just live in a black box.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 19, 2019, 04:53:36 PM
I'm not the one questioning whether refraction exists or not.  I am simply telling iamcpc that I have been familiar with what I recognise as the refraction of light for over 40 years so I don't understand his need to question whether refraction exists or not.

If what I recognise as the refraction of light actually isn't refraction after all then perhaps he could explain to me how refracting telescopes work.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 19, 2019, 05:39:57 PM
I'm not the one questioning whether refraction exists or not.  I am simply telling iamcpc that I have been familiar with what I recognise as the refraction of light for over 40 years so I don't understand his need to question whether refraction exists or not. If it doesn't then perhaps he could explain to me how refracting telescopes work.

I believe my comment was directed more toward iamcpc, since they were the ones to argue that it is impossible to know something 100%. I don't know that I am not the only conscious being, but that doesn't stop me from making friends and having meaningful relationships, for instance. So claiming that you can't know something for absolute sure is no argument for or against anything.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 19, 2019, 05:50:24 PM
Quote
First off I don't know that it exists. It's impossible to know something is 100% true.

So what criteria or conditions need to exist then for you to say you actually know something?  The fact that I have been using refracting telescopes which rely on the concept known as refraction of light to work gives me a clue about its existence.

It gives you a clue about it's existence. It does not PROVE it. In the event that we are just a giant simulation on a super advanced civilization's super computer refraction does not really "exist"

I guess for me to say that i know 100% that refraction exists is virtually impossible. What if a person is born and, when his brain creates images out of "refracted" light beams they don't appear out of place our out of position at all. That person has a much more significantly advanced visual cortex than your average human.  To him the idea of "refraction" would be utter absurdity and we would all be insane for believing such a thing.


Remember this dress? Half the people who saw it said the dress was blue and black. The other half of people who saw it said the dress was white and gold. What is the TRUTH? Well the truth is that people have different visual cortex's, different eyes, and different optical nerves and see different things.

(http://globalflare.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/enhanced-4085-1424999419-11.jpg)


Remember this? A lot of people heard "Yanny" and many people heard "Laurel".

What is the TRUTH. What is the voice saying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X_WvGAhMlQ




I believe my comment was directed more toward iamcpc, since they were the ones to argue that it is impossible to know something 100%. I don't know that I am not the only conscious being, but that doesn't stop me from making friends and having meaningful relationships, for instance. So claiming that you can't know something for absolute sure is no argument for or against anything.

This is not an argument. Someone asked what would need to happen for me to go from believing that refraction is real to KNOWING that refraction is real and the answer to that question is very complicated.



I'm not the one questioning whether refraction exists or not.  I am simply telling iamcpc that I have been familiar with what I recognise as the refraction of light for over 40 years so I don't understand his need to question whether refraction exists or not.

If what I recognise as the refraction of light actually isn't refraction after all then perhaps he could explain to me how refracting telescopes work.

I've already explained that I believe there is a lot of evidence which suggest that it is very likely that images made in the average human visual cortex are affected by the path the photons take before the strike the optic nerve.

Do I KNOW 100% that this is the case? No I do not.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 19, 2019, 06:23:15 PM

Remember this dress? Half the people who saw it said the dress was blue and black. The other half of people who saw it said the dress was white and gold. What is the TRUTH? Well the truth is that people have different visual cortex's, different eyes, and different optical nerves and see different things.



Remember this? A lot of people heard "Yanny" and many people heard "Laurel".

What is the TRUTH. What is the voice saying?

Regarding the dress:

The TRUTH is that neither are correct, for colors do not exist in reality.

Regarding the audio recording:

The TRUTH is that each individual is not created equally. We each hear different pitches at varying decibels. This audio was recorded with both "yanny" and "lorel" dubbed over each other. Whichever you hear is dependent on what decibel you hear the corresponding pitch.

To answer the question of "What is truth?" requires a different thread.

To answer the question of whether or not refraction exists.... it exists in as much as light waves exist. However, each individual perception of refraction will change. This is why we have different prescription glasses.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: jerinr1 on August 19, 2019, 06:58:52 PM
If you are asking for FET evidence that the earth is flat, a good place to start would be the wiki in this site.

If you are asking what motives bring people to believe that the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence against it, I could think of at least two:
- Religious convictions. Some passages of the Bible seem to suggest that the earth is flat or fixed to a position.
- Appeal of conspiracy theories. That would be the psychological explanation.


Kindly quote the verse or the chapter where the Earth is mentioned to be flat in the Bible. Nowhere has it mentioned that the Earth is flat.
He has not written the Bible mentioned the Earth is flat.

He wrote the Bible seemed to "suggest," the Earth is flat.

Well, where does the bible seem to suggest the earth is flat?

My point exactly.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 19, 2019, 07:05:54 PM
Here is a site that discusses how the bible "seems to suggest the earth is flat", and why it actually does not suggest it to be flat.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: ChrisTP on August 19, 2019, 08:42:47 PM
But why should the bible be taken at face value? What makes the bible true? If you're going to use the bible as proof the earth is flat I can by all means use Harry Potter books as proof that wizards exist. The people who wrote the bible could have just been writing a 'way of life' and basing their stories on real events to help add some immersion and understanding. What makes the bible factually accurate?

So here we are now using some old book from people who weren't as scientifically advanced as we are now. People with less understanding and knowledge of the world. I would stop using the bible as proof of anything.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 19, 2019, 08:47:36 PM
Quote
What if a person is born and, when his brain creates images out of "refracted" light beams they don't appear out of place our out of position at all. That person has a much more significantly advanced visual cortex than your average human

I should imagine there has been more than one person born up to now where there is an abnormality in the communication between eye and brain which gives them a different interpretation of what we call normal vision. At least I think that's what you are getting at.  Without the brain our vision would be upside down because the single bi-convex lens in the human eye inverts the image.  Evolution has led to that image being turned the 'right way up'. So it is only because the vast majority of people see 'up' and 'down' in the same way that we have come to call that 'normal'.

As you may be aware our perception of what is 'upside down' or not is based on our normal everyday experience.  As soon as you lose the horizon from you field of view (as you do when you peer through an astronomical telescope) then your awareness of direction vanishes.  An astronomical telescope naturally produces an inverted image but that doesn't matter because there is no 'upside down' in space. An image of Saturn for example looks identical regardless of whether north is at the top or south is at the top.

Regarding the bible... I repeat what I said before. A long time Christian was quite open in telling me that the bible should be regarded as a text of spiritual guidance to be taken with a broad context rather than a description of life to be taken literally.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 19, 2019, 09:30:35 PM
Here is a site that discusses how the bible "seems to suggest the earth is flat", and why it actually does not suggest it to be flat.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/


Those verses are ones that can be discussed against and those, i believe, are valid counterpoints.


The main biblical verses which most strongly support the FE model are the dozen or so verses about the movement of the earth.


If the earth is not moving then it's not rotating on it's axis and it's not orbiting the sun.




https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0



Psalm 93:1 NASB

The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

Psalm 96:10 NASB

Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity.”

1 Chronicles 16:30 NASB

Tremble before Him, all the earth;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved

Psalm 104:5 NASB

He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.




Josh 10:13
The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One. The sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky and did not set for about a full day.

If the earth was spinning then it would have had to come to a crashing halt both in it's orbit around the sun and in its rotation on its axis for this to happen which violates the law of inertia.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 19, 2019, 09:36:35 PM
To those around during biblical times the Earth would have appeared to be stationary just as it does to us today. So for them it was an entirely reasonable conclusion.  We now know that it isn't stationary.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 19, 2019, 09:52:31 PM
To those around during biblical times the Earth would have appeared to be stationary just as it does to us today. So for them it was an entirely reasonable conclusion.  We now know that it isn't stationary.


The Bible is not the word of man it's the word of God.
If God says the Earth is stationary or does not move than that's the way it is and the earth must be flat because all the RE models are based on a large amount of motion.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 19, 2019, 09:54:46 PM
Whatever... but what whether word of man or word of God, what has that got to do with whether the Earth appeared to be stationary or not?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 19, 2019, 10:00:46 PM
Whatever... but what whether word of man or word of God, what has that got to do with whether the Earth appeared to be stationary or not?

According to the Bible, per the verses listed above, it could be argued that Earth IS stationary. If the earth is stationary that provides a lot of support to the models of the universe in which the earth is stationary.

How things appear mean nothing when you have the holy word of God to guide you.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 19, 2019, 10:21:18 PM
It could equally be argued that the Earth is not stationary based on modern observations.  Back in the days that the bible relates to the resources available to determine the nature of the Universe and whether the Earth is stationary and the centre of it all were far more limited.  To what could be directly observed in fact.

Clearly the bible is important and significant to you. I assume you are a religious person and that being the case I respect that.  I just see these things differently to you.

Quote
If the earth is stationary that provides a lot of support to the models of the universe in which the earth is stationary.

And of course it follows from that, if the Earth is not stationary that provides a lot of support to models of the Universe in which the Earth is not stationary.  I would personally say there is more evidence to suggest the latter is true compared to the former.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 20, 2019, 01:21:39 AM
The bible is also difficult to take literally, and depending on the translation, can be interpreted in multiple ways. I find in hard to take those scriptures literally.

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved."

Is that the roman army bragging about its everlasting reign and power? Another empire maybe? I'm not a historian, but the odds are pretty good that the interpretation of an un-moving world being a flat earth is pretty low considering the ("world of pure imagination" - willy wonka.) alternatives.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: jerinr1 on August 20, 2019, 05:45:37 AM
But why should the bible be taken at face value? What makes the bible true? If you're going to use the bible as proof the earth is flat I can by all means use Harry Potter books as proof that wizards exist. The people who wrote the bible could have just been writing a 'way of life' and basing their stories on real events to help add some immersion and understanding. What makes the bible factually accurate?

So here we are now using some old book from people who weren't as scientifically advanced as we are now. People with less understanding and knowledge of the world. I would stop using the bible as proof of anything.

Dear Chris,

The Bible is the only book that is the prophetic Word from God himself. Many have asked the same question - Why rely on the Bible? I would recommend Ray Comfort's books as one way for you to understand why the Bible is true. Lee Strobel has also done extensive research in the finding the facts. The Bible was written by many educated people in the past and that includes kings like David & Solomon. Even doctors like Luke wrote the facts which coincides with the facts written by Matthew, Mark and John. Every prophesy written in the Bible has either happened or is happening. The fall of many cities like Jerusalem for example were already there. I wouldn't say that you should believe the Bible right now itself. Look into it but never neglect it. God bless you.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 20, 2019, 09:59:12 AM
The Bible can be true and inspired but that doesn't make it a science book. I never understand why people insist that certain verses of Scripture must be taken scientifically literally.
Is early Genesis trying to teach us the age of the universe, how long creation took or the exact order of events? Is that really the important message it's trying to teach us?
To me it's teaching deeper truths - it teaches us that we are a creation, created by God. It teaches us that we are set apart from the rest of creation and it tells us about the consequences of our rebellion from God and our need for salvation.

The pope even apologised to Galileo and admitted he was right. Scientific discovery doesn't disprove the Bible but it may change how we understand certain verses. The Bible isn't intended to be a science book, it tells us itself what it's for:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

"The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" - Galileo.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: ChrisTP on August 20, 2019, 10:01:57 AM
But why should the bible be taken at face value? What makes the bible true? If you're going to use the bible as proof the earth is flat I can by all means use Harry Potter books as proof that wizards exist. The people who wrote the bible could have just been writing a 'way of life' and basing their stories on real events to help add some immersion and understanding. What makes the bible factually accurate?

So here we are now using some old book from people who weren't as scientifically advanced as we are now. People with less understanding and knowledge of the world. I would stop using the bible as proof of anything.

Dear Chris,

The Bible is the only book that is the prophetic Word from God himself. Many have asked the same question - Why rely on the Bible? I would recommend Ray Comfort's books as one way for you to understand why the Bible is true. Lee Strobel has also done extensive research in the finding the facts. The Bible was written by many educated people in the past and that includes kings like David & Solomon. Even doctors like Luke wrote the facts which coincides with the facts written by Matthew, Mark and John. Every prophesy written in the Bible has either happened or is happening. The fall of many cities like Jerusalem for example were already there. I wouldn't say that you should believe the Bible right now itself. Look into it but never neglect it. God bless you.
I don't wanna turn this thread into a bible discussion but I'll answer you. I've read a couple of different versions of the bible and I still think that a) it was probably written by man and b) it probably wasn't literal.

I've come to the first conclusion because there are different version of the bible within the same religion suggesting that it changes over time based on what 'feels right' by humans. There are plenty of bible verses religious people have ignored that talk about reasons for when you should rape or kill or cut peoples hands off or whatever else no one would want to do. You can change the bible but technically if it's still all written in the word of god then why change it? I came to the second conclusion because there are wacky verses and stories that simply sound like the imagination of men at the time. That's not to say I don't think anyone should pay attention to the words... There are some wise words in the bible and some people think it's written more as a way to live your life fully and successfully and that's fine, I don't judge people who are religious, to each their own. I could go into many more reasons why I don't think the bible is the word of a literal god but I'll leave it at this; IMO the bible is written by men, for men. Take it literally or take it metaphorically, I don't mind which but don't use it as a scientific text book when you can't verify half the stuff in there as fact or fiction.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 20, 2019, 10:43:42 AM
If you are asking for FET evidence that the earth is flat, a good place to start would be the wiki in this site.

If you are asking what motives bring people to believe that the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence against it, I could think of at least two:
- Religious convictions. Some passages of the Bible seem to suggest that the earth is flat or fixed to a position.
- Appeal of conspiracy theories. That would be the psychological explanation.


Kindly quote the verse or the chapter where the Earth is mentioned to be flat in the Bible. Nowhere has it mentioned that the Earth is flat.
He has not written the Bible mentioned the Earth is flat.

He wrote the Bible seemed to "suggest," the Earth is flat.

Well, where does the bible seem to suggest the earth is flat?

My point exactly.
Unless a sphere has corners, I present the following:

Isaiah 11:12
And He will lift up a standard for the nations And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 20, 2019, 11:31:05 AM
Your four corners:

North, south, east, west
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 20, 2019, 12:07:03 PM
Here is a site that discusses how the bible "seems to suggest the earth is flat", and why it actually does not suggest it to be flat.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/
Your four corners:

North, south, east, west
On your provided site the word "suggest," or its derivatives appears five times.

First, "Nearly everyone understands that a sphere does not have an edge. Indeed, we can travel indefinitely around a sphere and never reach a boundary or edge. On the other hand, if the earth is flat, it must have an edge somewhere, unless the earth is an infinite plane. However, few people today suggest the latter, and no one in the ancient world did. Bible skeptics are fond of pointing out that the phrase “four corners of the earth” appears three times in the Bible. Surely, the skeptics claim, this must refer to a flat, square earth—thus proving that the Bible teaches a flat earth."

Second, "The many instances of anthropomorphisms in the Bible, suggesting such things as God having hands (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 66:2) or eyes (Proverbs 15:2) clearly are not literal. There also is an inconsistency in the flat-earth argument here. Flat-earthers believe that the firmament is a transparent dome over the earth, and hence is curved. On the other hand, no body of water is curved, but rather all seas have flat surfaces. But John described a sea of glass, which, by every other use, must be flat, so why is this one curved?"

Third, "Flat-earthers who pursue this distinction suggest that the phrase “in the firmament of heaven” of Genesis 1:17 (and possibly Genesis 1:14–15 as well) ought to be understood as “inside the firmament of heaven.”

Fourth, "Presumably, this was while still in the wilderness. Next, the devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem and suggested that Jesus cast himself down (Matthew 4:5). Note that there was considerable distance between the wilderness and the Temple (at least 50 miles)."

Fifth, " For instance, the phrase “ends of the earth” appears 28 times in the King James Version, and, if taken literally, suggest that the earth has an edge, which would rule out a spherical earth."

In the only instance your article figuratively "leaves the Bible to its own devices," so to speak, your article clearly states the Bible does indeed suggest the earth is flat, as a sphere does not possess four corners and does not have an end.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 20, 2019, 12:58:25 PM
Here is a site that discusses how the bible "seems to suggest the earth is flat", and why it actually does not suggest it to be flat.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/
Your four corners:

North, south, east, west
On your provided site the word "suggest," or its derivatives appears five times.

First, "Nearly everyone understands that a sphere does not have an edge. Indeed, we can travel indefinitely around a sphere and never reach a boundary or edge. On the other hand, if the earth is flat, it must have an edge somewhere, unless the earth is an infinite plane. However, few people today suggest the latter, and no one in the ancient world did. Bible skeptics are fond of pointing out that the phrase “four corners of the earth” appears three times in the Bible. Surely, the skeptics claim, this must refer to a flat, square earth—thus proving that the Bible teaches a flat earth."

Second, "The many instances of anthropomorphisms in the Bible, suggesting such things as God having hands (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 66:2) or eyes (Proverbs 15:2) clearly are not literal. There also is an inconsistency in the flat-earth argument here. Flat-earthers believe that the firmament is a transparent dome over the earth, and hence is curved. On the other hand, no body of water is curved, but rather all seas have flat surfaces. But John described a sea of glass, which, by every other use, must be flat, so why is this one curved?"

Third, "Flat-earthers who pursue this distinction suggest that the phrase “in the firmament of heaven” of Genesis 1:17 (and possibly Genesis 1:14–15 as well) ought to be understood as “inside the firmament of heaven.”

Fourth, "Presumably, this was while still in the wilderness. Next, the devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem and suggested that Jesus cast himself down (Matthew 4:5). Note that there was considerable distance between the wilderness and the Temple (at least 50 miles)."

Fifth, " For instance, the phrase “ends of the earth” appears 28 times in the King James Version, and, if taken literally, suggest that the earth has an edge, which would rule out a spherical earth."

In the only instance your article figuratively "leaves the Bible to its own devices," so to speak, your article clearly states the Bible does indeed suggest the earth is flat, as a sphere does not possess four corners and does not have an end.

You've heard of figurative speech, right?

You are taking those phrases literally. Do you really believe the earth is a square? Even FET does not suggest it to be square. Do you really believe the sun and moon stopped in the sky? Even if it literally stopped in the sky, how is this evidence of a flat earth? It seems like a stretch to interpret those scriptures to be anything other than metaphors.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 20, 2019, 01:05:17 PM
You've heard of figurative speech, right?
I have.
You are taking those phrases literally.
I'm not.

I am merely pointing out the Bible, as your own source points out, suggests the earth is flat.
Do you really believe the earth is a square? Even FET does not suggest it to be square.
I do not know.

I do not know that FET suggests a square, infinite plane, or other shape.

FET does suggest "flat."
Do you really believe the sun and moon stopped in the sky? Even if it literally stopped in the sky, how is this evidence of a flat earth? It seems like a stretch to interpret those scriptures to be anything other than metaphors.
I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 20, 2019, 01:29:27 PM
...

I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?

This verse was mentioned above:

Josh 10:13
The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One. The sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky and did not set for about a full day.

It is being used to suggest the earth is flat since suddenly stopping rotation would cause a massive inertia backlash if the earth was spinning.

When you are pointing out how the bible suggests the earth is flat, your argument assumes a literal interpretation of the bible, so you literally ARE taking those scriptures LITERALLY. When it says "ends of the earth", you are taking that as the earth literally has ends. "To the four corners of the earth" you are taking it that the earth literally has four corners - hence you are taking it literally.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 20, 2019, 03:50:23 PM
...

I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?

This verse was mentioned above:

Josh 10:13
The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One. The sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky and did not set for about a full day.

It is being used to suggest the earth is flat since suddenly stopping rotation would cause a massive inertia backlash if the earth was spinning.

When you are pointing out how the bible suggests the earth is flat, your argument assumes a literal interpretation of the bible, so you literally ARE taking those scriptures LITERALLY. When it says "ends of the earth", you are taking that as the earth literally has ends. "To the four corners of the earth" you are taking it that the earth literally has four corners - hence you are taking it literally.
I am not taking it literally.

I am pointing out, as does your own source (which I quoted) states the Bible does suggest the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 20, 2019, 04:30:56 PM
...

I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?

This verse was mentioned above:

Josh 10:13
The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One. The sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky and did not set for about a full day.

It is being used to suggest the earth is flat since suddenly stopping rotation would cause a massive inertia backlash if the earth was spinning.

When you are pointing out how the bible suggests the earth is flat, your argument assumes a literal interpretation of the bible, so you literally ARE taking those scriptures LITERALLY. When it says "ends of the earth", you are taking that as the earth literally has ends. "To the four corners of the earth" you are taking it that the earth literally has four corners - hence you are taking it literally.
I am not taking it literally.

I am pointing out, as does your own source (which I quoted) states the Bible does suggest the earth is flat.

OK - let's try this again:

If I say you are "as fit as a fiddle", figuratively that means you are in good shape. Literally, that means your fitness is that of a fiddle - which doesn't make sense.

If I say you have a "heart of gold", figuratively that means you have a good heart, and you are a kind person. Literally, that means your heart is metallic gold, and you wouldn't be alive.

If someone says "I will follow you to the ends of the earth". Does that mean they will follow you until you fall of the earth?...... No, that means they will follow you wherever you go.

Do you see the difference between figurative and literal?

Let's pick at this verse:

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.

Four angels, four winds, four corners.... Literally that means that the earth is square, and there are four angels standing at each corner holding back the wind - the four winds, to be exact.

So, there are only four winds on earth? That doesn't make sense.... unless you're describing that the wind generally comes from either the north, south, east, or west - that makes sense. Maybe this verse just means there was such a calming on earth that there was no wind. So calm that the trees weren't blowing their leaves and the lakes had no waves.

You see, the latter explanation I gave is a figurative interpretation. The former is the literal.

Any explanation of the scripture that "seems to suggest the earth is flat" is also taking these scriptures literally - which is absurd.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 20, 2019, 05:22:05 PM
Even if it literally stopped in the sky, how is this evidence of a flat earth?



In the RE model the earth is spinning at something like 900 miles per hour. This spinning is what causes the sun to rise and fall. In the RE model, in order for the sun to stay in the sky, the earth would have to go from spinning at 900 miles per hour to spinning at 0 miles per hour. Think of a car hitting a brick wall at 900 miles per hour.  According to the RE model the law of inertia would fling us all into brick walls or trees and literally destroy the entire earth.

In the FE model the sun rise and set is most commonly caused by the motion of the sun not the motion of the earth so if it came to screeching halt no one on earth would be effected and it would not be violating the law of inertia.



The bible is also difficult to take literally, and depending on the translation, can be interpreted in multiple ways. I find in hard to take those scriptures literally.

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved."

Is that the roman army bragging about its everlasting reign and power? Another empire maybe? I'm not a historian, but the odds are pretty good that the interpretation of an un-moving world being a flat earth is pretty low considering the ("world of pure imagination" - willy wonka.) alternatives.

This is the first verse of chapter 93. Chapter 93 is not about armies, it's not about people, it's entirely about God.

93:1   The LORD reigns. He has majesty and strength.  The earth is firmly established and can't be moved or will never be moved.
93:2   The throne of the LORD was established long ago and either the throne or God (or both) are everlasting
93:3   The seas/flood/waters have lifted up o LORD, the seas/flood/waters have lifted up their voice. the seas/flood/waters lifted up their waves/roaring
93:4   the LORD is mightier than the seas/flood/waters described above.
93:5   The LORDS statues/laws/decrees/testimonies are firm/trustworthy/unchanging/sure and the house of the LORD will be holy forever/forevermore/eternity.

End of chapter. Nothing about nations, Romans, Israelites etc.


Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 20, 2019, 05:31:45 PM
Even if it literally stopped in the sky, how is this evidence of a flat earth?



In the RE model the earth is spinning at something like 900 miles per hour. This spinning is what causes the sun to rise and fall. In the RE model, in order for the sun to stay in the sky, the earth would have to go from spinning at 900 miles per hour to spinning at 0 miles per hour. Think of a car hitting a brick wall at 900 miles per hour.  According to the RE model the law of inertia would fling us all into brick walls or trees and literally destroy the entire earth.

In the FE model the sun rise and set is most commonly caused by the motion of the sun not the motion of the earth so if it came to screeching halt no one on earth would be effected and it would not be violating the law of inertia.

Iamcpc, thank you, I realized this implication while arguing with lackey. If the sun literally did stop in the middle of the sky, that would create chaos in both models, and lead to more questions about what moves the sun and so forth.

I hate to sound cliche, but this is also a case of incorrectly assuming a literal translation of the event. Is it too hard to believe that someone might write about a dramatic battle and in an attempt to accurately portray the chaos, describe a long, terribly pain-stricken day as a day in which the sun and moon came to a halt (for a day).

I'd also like to point out that it all occurred conveniently within a single day - just as if the sun were behaving normally...
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 20, 2019, 06:03:50 PM

This is the first verse of chapter 93. Chapter 93 is not about armies, it's not about people, it's entirely about God.

93:1   The LORD reigns. He has majesty and strength.  The earth is firmly established and can't be moved or will never be moved.
93:2   The throne of the LORD was established long ago and either the throne or God (or both) are everlasting
93:3   The seas/flood/waters have lifted up o LORD, the seas/flood/waters have lifted up their voice. the seas/flood/waters lifted up their waves/roaring
93:4   the LORD is mightier than the seas/flood/waters described above.
93:5   The LORDS statues/laws/decrees/testimonies are firm/trustworthy/unchanging/sure and the house of the LORD will be holy forever/forevermore/eternity.

End of chapter. Nothing about nations, Romans, Israelites etc.

First off, I would question the translation of the word "earth". What version is this scripture taken from? The word "earth" could be a Hebrew word that translates to something similar to "earth". Such a word could be "Adamah" which  means "ground".

So, "The earth is firmly established and can't be moved or will never be moved." could actually be "The ground is firmly established and can't be moved or will never be moved."

Such a scripture could be interpreted to mean that the Lord has established a solid foundation. Such an interpretation fits nicely with the remainder of the scripture you quoted.

- the LORD is mightier than the seas/flood/waters described above.
- The LORDS statues/laws/decrees/testimonies are firm/trustworthy/unchanging/sure and the house of the LORD will be holy forever/forevermore/eternity.

All of this, to me, sounds like a Lord that has a solid foundation and is un-moving.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 20, 2019, 06:16:32 PM
But seriously, either way, how is a non-moving earth evidence that the earth is flat? FET still requires UA which means the earth definitely moves - just not the same way RE does.

In either theory, a non-moving earth posses numerous problems.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 20, 2019, 10:21:05 PM
First off, I would question the translation of the word "earth".


Some translations use the word "world"

Psalm 104:5 talks about how the God set the earth on it's foundations and it can never be moved. You could easily debate the bible is documenting a man's prayer but there are a good number of people who would argue that it's the holy infallible word of got that the world/earth does not move and it can not move.


But seriously, either way, how is a non-moving earth evidence that the earth is flat?


I can see, plain as day, the sun moving across the sky. The RE model says this is because the earth is spinning. Since we know the earth is not spinning because of the word of God then we know the RE model is wrong.

in addition the RE model says that the earth orbits the sun. We know that can't be possible either because the earth does not move.
What other possible ways could the earth function so that the sun can move across the sky without the earth rotating?

Here's an idea. Maybe the sun and moon are both moving but the earth is not as shown here:
(https://media.tenor.com/images/4b05114614526abc698ba888087ab16f/tenor.gif)




FET still requires UA which means the earth definitely moves - just not the same way RE does.

There are many FE models which don't use UA. A biblical non moving earth model would use gravity instead of UA.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 20, 2019, 10:58:51 PM
So what would you define the 'word of God' to be exactly than?  If something exists then it must be able to be defined.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 20, 2019, 11:45:26 PM
So what would you define the 'word of God' to be exactly than?  If something exists then it must be able to be defined.

Me personally I don't adhere to the biblical FE models. I don't think we should model our understanding of the world around us based on a book which is 2,000 years old.

I'm speaking on behalf of those who believe that, the verses i mentioned are taken in the most literal sense possible. The 'word of God' according to Christianity is the old and new testament. Judaism has the Torah as the word of God which is based off of the old testament. Islam believes in the prophets of both the old and new testament but mainly follows the Koran as the word of God.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: stack on August 20, 2019, 11:54:29 PM
Thought you guys might be interested. Tom has a whole write-up over on the other site titled "Does the Bible say that Earth is Stationary?" It's really quite well thought out. My understanding is that it's sort of in regard to UA. UA, essentially puts the earth in motion, upward. A ton of the FEr's outside of these 2 societies, especially the more scripturally minded ones, have publicly disavowed the societies and called them controlled opposition, shills, what have you, in large part because of UA, earth in motion.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 21, 2019, 01:37:49 AM
Thought you guys might be interested. Tom has a whole write-up over on the other site titled "Does the Bible say that Earth is Stationary?" It's really quite well thought out. My understanding is that it's sort of in regard to UA. UA, essentially puts the earth in motion, upward. A ton of the FEr's outside of these 2 societies, especially the more scripturally minded ones, have publicly disavowed the societies and called them controlled opposition, shills, what have you, in large part because of UA, earth in motion.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0


In our current understanding of motion is when the position of an object, with respect to it's surroundings, changes. If the entire universe is accelerating upward then the earth, relative to the universe, is not in motion. Again when I went to speak with a preacher about this his take was that the earth does not move outside of the physical universe IE nonliving portion of the planet will never cease to exist within the physical universe and appear somewhere outside the realm of existence such as Heaven.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: stack on August 21, 2019, 02:21:50 AM
Thought you guys might be interested. Tom has a whole write-up over on the other site titled "Does the Bible say that Earth is Stationary?" It's really quite well thought out. My understanding is that it's sort of in regard to UA. UA, essentially puts the earth in motion, upward. A ton of the FEr's outside of these 2 societies, especially the more scripturally minded ones, have publicly disavowed the societies and called them controlled opposition, shills, what have you, in large part because of UA, earth in motion.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0

In our current understanding of motion is when the position of an object, with respect to it's surroundings, changes. If the entire universe is accelerating upward then the earth, relative to the universe, is not in motion. Again when I went to speak with a preacher about this his take was that the earth does not move outside of the physical universe IE nonliving portion of the planet will never cease to exist within the physical universe and appear somewhere outside the realm of existence such as Heaven.

Yeah, it's actually murkier than that, I mean if everything is in motion together then nothing is in motion... But I agree with your definition of motion. All I'm saying is that Tom has gone to great lengths to point out scriptural references to, and I'm using my words and interpretation, allow for an upward accelerating earth. And that's regardless of whether the universe is moving along with us. And that perception, that any sort of motion is applied to the earth, from what I have seen and read, is the number one reason FEr's outside the societies lash out at the societies. They see it as simply, UA puts the earth in motion and from a scriptural perspective, that is anathema.

So I'm not debating any of these notions, just pointing out a contrary resource of information and why perhaps it's controversial in some circles.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 10:38:37 AM
EDITED FOR BREVITY..."...I question if you know the difference between figurative and literal language."
Yes I do.

I am not taking a position on the issue of figurative and literal language within the Bible.

I am taking a position on whether or not the Bible is suggestive of a flat earth.

Once more, your own source (as I have pointed out), indicates the Bible does suggest a flat earth.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 21, 2019, 02:08:54 PM
EDITED FOR BREVITY..."...I question if you know the difference between figurative and literal language."
Yes I do.

I am not taking a position on the issue of figurative and literal language within the Bible.

I am taking a position on whether or not the Bible is suggestive of a flat earth.

Once more, your own source (as I have pointed out), indicates the Bible does suggest a flat earth.

OK - but the bible is only suggestive if you take it literally. If you take those scriptures figuratively, it has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

Furthermore, you keep saying "your own source" (referencing the link I posted) says blah blah blah, and using that to discredit what I'm saying, but that is irrelevant to my point about interpreting things as literal or figurative.

Did you even read the link I sent? It argues against using the bible as evidence for a flat earth.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 21, 2019, 04:13:36 PM
Take yourself back to the time of the bible for a moment.  What observations or evidence did the people who lived at the time have about what shape the Earth is?  Only what their own eyes could show them. They observed all the same natural celestial events in the sky that we do but they had absolutely no idea what was happening or what caused them. Their only tool beyond their own eyes was their imagination. They could see things happen but they had no control over them, they couldn't predict them and so those factors combined essentially led them unavoidably to the conclusion that some 'thing' was behind it all. 

That thing must be something well beyond what humans could understand (at the time) and therefore it must be more powerful than any human. That to me is how the concept of God came about. Even today if something cannot be explained by the known laws of nature then it placed under the umbrella of 'power of God'. The Higgs Boson was referred to as the God Particle before it was discovered by the LHC.

We understand a lot more about the power of nature and the laws of physics now and so events and phenomenon that once were simply attributed to the power of God are now better understood. Some of the mystery attached to these things is now clearer in our minds. That is not to say we would now declare ourselves to know everything. Far from it and that is what makes science fun. The quest for knowledge. There are a few things that we can safely conclude now, regardless of what you say the bible says or the word of God says and one those I would contend is that the Earth ain't flat. Dismiss me or disagree with me as much as you like but its true.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 06:52:15 PM
EDITED FOR BREVITY..."...I question if you know the difference between figurative and literal language."
Yes I do.

I am not taking a position on the issue of figurative and literal language within the Bible.

I am taking a position on whether or not the Bible is suggestive of a flat earth.

Once more, your own source (as I have pointed out), indicates the Bible does suggest a flat earth.

OK - but the bible is only suggestive if you take it literally. If you take those scriptures figuratively, it has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

Furthermore, you keep saying "your own source" (referencing the link I posted) says blah blah blah, and using that to discredit what I'm saying, but that is irrelevant to my point about interpreting things as literal or figurative.

Did you even read the link I sent? It argues against using the bible as evidence for a flat earth.
I quote it, so it is a pretty fair bet to state I read the material on the link you sent.

And I am not discrediting what you write about figurative and literal.

I understand your point about that.

My point is the Bible suggests a flat earth.

It does not literally (or even figuratively) state "flat earth," but the question of literal phrasing or figurative phrasing was not addressed in the post to which I responded.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 21, 2019, 08:25:14 PM

OK - but the bible is only suggestive if you take it literally. If you take those scriptures figuratively, it has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

Furthermore, you keep saying "your own source" (referencing the link I posted) says blah blah blah, and using that to discredit what I'm saying, but that is irrelevant to my point about interpreting things as literal or figurative.

Did you even read the link I sent? It argues against using the bible as evidence for a flat earth.

The link you sent does not mention the many verses in which the bible says the earth does not move and the scripture about when the sun stopped moving.

Those are much more clear. Especially when you have a very short chapter and the entire context of the chapter is God and one of the verses says that the earth does not move or can not move.

Its pretty clear. The earth either does not move or it can't move or both. The only way the earth could not figuratively move is if it somehow moved out of this physical plane of existence and moved into some sort of spiritual plane of existence. I believe that moving to a different plane of existence is still "moving" so even taking in a spiritual sense you are still using the literal definition of the word.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: stack on August 21, 2019, 08:41:19 PM

OK - but the bible is only suggestive if you take it literally. If you take those scriptures figuratively, it has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

Furthermore, you keep saying "your own source" (referencing the link I posted) says blah blah blah, and using that to discredit what I'm saying, but that is irrelevant to my point about interpreting things as literal or figurative.

Did you even read the link I sent? It argues against using the bible as evidence for a flat earth.

The link you sent does not mention the many verses in which the bible says the earth does not move and the scripture about when the sun stopped moving.

Those are much more clear. Especially when you have a very short chapter and the entire context of the chapter is God and one of the verses says that the earth does not move or can not move.

Its pretty clear. The earth either does not move or it can't move or both. The only way the earth could not figuratively move is if it somehow moved out of this physical plane of existence and moved into some sort of spiritual plane of existence. I believe that moving to a different plane of existence is still "moving" so even taking in a spiritual sense you are still using the literal definition of the word.

What's always interesting is that if you got 20 biblical scholars in a room, 10 would say figuratively, literally, suggestively, whatever, the scriptures say the earth does not move. The other 10 would disagree. Just watch the Skiba/Sungenis debate and how they spent 3/4's of it arguing about whether a hebrew word for 'firmament' meant 'under' or 'in'.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 21, 2019, 10:07:33 PM

OK - but the bible is only suggestive if you take it literally. If you take those scriptures figuratively, it has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

Furthermore, you keep saying "your own source" (referencing the link I posted) says blah blah blah, and using that to discredit what I'm saying, but that is irrelevant to my point about interpreting things as literal or figurative.

Did you even read the link I sent? It argues against using the bible as evidence for a flat earth.

The link you sent does not mention the many verses in which the bible says the earth does not move and the scripture about when the sun stopped moving.

Those are much more clear. Especially when you have a very short chapter and the entire context of the chapter is God and one of the verses says that the earth does not move or can not move.

Its pretty clear. The earth either does not move or it can't move or both. The only way the earth could not figuratively move is if it somehow moved out of this physical plane of existence and moved into some sort of spiritual plane of existence. I believe that moving to a different plane of existence is still "moving" so even taking in a spiritual sense you are still using the literal definition of the word.

OK - I have a New King James Bible, a Vine's complete expository dictionary of old and new testament, plus a Strong's Exhaustive concordance of the bible (it's like 2500 pages)

I will find some verses about the earth being un-moved, and attempt my own interpretation of them. If you have any of your own verses, I'd be glad to pick at those as well.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 21, 2019, 10:41:57 PM
1 Chronicles 16:30 - "Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established. It shall not be moved."

In order to understand what this verse is talking about, you have to read from the beginning of the chapter. It is a song of thanksgiving by King David of Israel. He is talking about how great the Lord is, ruler of all the earth. "Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples."

David wants the Israelites to know that the Lord's strength is unwavering and all the world shall give glory to His name.

In the Bible, the word "world" is often used metonymically to mean "human race, mankind". If you read the entire chapter, it is clear that "world" is being used to mean "mankind" rather than a celestial body.

Imagine a song proclaiming that all the world rejoice in the name of the lord and hail His greatness for ever and ever, and ,oh btw, the planet earth doesn't move.... excuse me?!

Taking this verse to mean earth literally does not move is taking it out of context.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 22, 2019, 03:58:07 PM
1 Chronicles 16:30 - "Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established. It shall not be moved."

In order to understand what this verse is talking about, you have to read from the beginning of the chapter. It is a song of thanksgiving by King David of Israel. He is talking about how great the Lord is, ruler of all the earth. "Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples."

David wants the Israelites to know that the Lord's strength is unwavering and all the world shall give glory to His name.

In the Bible, the word "world" is often used metonymically to mean "human race, mankind". If you read the entire chapter, it is clear that "world" is being used to mean "mankind" rather than a celestial body.

Imagine a song proclaiming that all the world rejoice in the name of the lord and hail His greatness for ever and ever, and ,oh btw, the planet earth doesn't move.... excuse me?!

Taking this verse to mean earth literally does not move is taking it out of context.


That really does not make sense. The human race is firmly established it shall not be moved?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 22, 2019, 05:03:41 PM
1 Chronicles 16:30 - "Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established. It shall not be moved."

In order to understand what this verse is talking about, you have to read from the beginning of the chapter. It is a song of thanksgiving by King David of Israel. He is talking about how great the Lord is, ruler of all the earth. "Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples."

David wants the Israelites to know that the Lord's strength is unwavering and all the world shall give glory to His name.

In the Bible, the word "world" is often used metonymically to mean "human race, mankind". If you read the entire chapter, it is clear that "world" is being used to mean "mankind" rather than a celestial body.

Imagine a song proclaiming that all the world rejoice in the name of the lord and hail His greatness for ever and ever, and ,oh btw, the planet earth doesn't move.... excuse me?!

Taking this verse to mean earth literally does not move is taking it out of context.


That really does not make sense. The human race is firmly established it shall not be moved?

Perhaps some of its meaning was lost in translation? In my mind the phrase is meant to add luster to the point King David is making - unwavering reign and power  in an un-wavering and firmly established humanity?

I see your point, but interpreting that phrase in this context to mean a celestial body that literally does not move does not make anymore sense than an unmoving humankind.

I have also read an interpretation that unmoving and fixed means that the earth is fixed in orbit, it's orientation relative to the other celestial bodies does not change.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 22, 2019, 05:40:27 PM
Perhaps some of its meaning was lost in translation? In my mind the phrase is meant to add luster to the point King David is making - unwavering reign and power  in an un-wavering and firmly established humanity?

I see your point, but interpreting that phrase in this context to mean a celestial body that literally does not move does not make anymore sense than an unmoving humankind.

I have also read an interpretation that unmoving and fixed means that the earth is fixed in orbit, it's orientation relative to the other celestial bodies does not change.

There are many ways to interpret the earth does not move and can't move. I had previously described a situation in which the earth does not move or can't move from this physical universe or this physical plane of existence which was one interpretation.

Another interpretation was that the earth does not move in relation to the plants and animals which inhabit it. 

Another interpretation was that the earth does not move outside of our solar system or does not move out of its orbit around the sun.

Another interpretation was that not moving was more symbolic that the earth will always be here. We won't wake up one morning and the earth is just gone.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: jerinr1 on August 22, 2019, 08:04:19 PM
But why should the bible be taken at face value? What makes the bible true? If you're going to use the bible as proof the earth is flat I can by all means use Harry Potter books as proof that wizards exist. The people who wrote the bible could have just been writing a 'way of life' and basing their stories on real events to help add some immersion and understanding. What makes the bible factually accurate?

So here we are now using some old book from people who weren't as scientifically advanced as we are now. People with less understanding and knowledge of the world. I would stop using the bible as proof of anything.

Dear Chris,

The Bible is the only book that is the prophetic Word from God himself. Many have asked the same question - Why rely on the Bible? I would recommend Ray Comfort's books as one way for you to understand why the Bible is true. Lee Strobel has also done extensive research in the finding the facts. The Bible was written by many educated people in the past and that includes kings like David & Solomon. Even doctors like Luke wrote the facts which coincides with the facts written by Matthew, Mark and John. Every prophesy written in the Bible has either happened or is happening. The fall of many cities like Jerusalem for example were already there. I wouldn't say that you should believe the Bible right now itself. Look into it but never neglect it. God bless you.
I don't wanna turn this thread into a bible discussion but I'll answer you. I've read a couple of different versions of the bible and I still think that a) it was probably written by man and b) it probably wasn't literal.

I've come to the first conclusion because there are different version of the bible within the same religion suggesting that it changes over time based on what 'feels right' by humans. There are plenty of bible verses religious people have ignored that talk about reasons for when you should rape or kill or cut peoples hands off or whatever else no one would want to do. You can change the bible but technically if it's still all written in the word of god then why change it? I came to the second conclusion because there are wacky verses and stories that simply sound like the imagination of men at the time. That's not to say I don't think anyone should pay attention to the words... There are some wise words in the bible and some people think it's written more as a way to live your life fully and successfully and that's fine, I don't judge people who are religious, to each their own. I could go into many more reasons why I don't think the bible is the word of a literal god but I'll leave it at this; IMO the bible is written by men, for men. Take it literally or take it metaphorically, I don't mind which but don't use it as a scientific text book when you can't verify half the stuff in there as fact or fiction.

Dear Chris,

I just want to say that I really understand your point. Different Bible versions tell different things and that makes people confused. But the Word is still intact, no matter what people say. They are not there for people to mess with. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."- Matthew 7:7

God bless you brother.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 22, 2019, 08:35:41 PM
An important point to note about different versions of the Bible is they are more indicative of the way language changes, not the message. And to an extent the way different translators work. Different versions are useful because they often bring out different aspects of the message. But all translations are (or should be) translations of the same source material. It’s a myth that it’s translations of translations and the original message has been lost.

And, again, scientific discovery can change the way we understand certain parts of the Bible. Had I lived a few hundred years ago I’d probably be a young earth creationist. But we know better now, so I’m not. But that doesn’t mean I can’t recognise and believe the deeper truths Genesis is trying to teach me.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 23, 2019, 02:15:13 AM
I am inclined to believe that when the bible talks about the world being established, and un-moving, it is talking (in some way) about the presence of the lord on the earth and the foundation that the lord provides to the world - it is established and it will not be moved. That is powerful.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: newhorizons on August 23, 2019, 06:59:45 AM
Quote
when the bible talks about the world being established, and un-moving, it is talking (in some way) about the presence of the lord on the earth

And I am inclined to believe it is just talking about the way people perceived the world to be at the time. Nothing more. There is no question that the world certainly was established at the time the bible was written, and there is no question people would not have felt any direction motion relating to the Earth (other than the odd Earthquake of course) and so to them it would have seemed to be un-moving.

Nothing to do with the presence of the lord or anything such like.  That's just an interpretation that people today choose to have. 
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 23, 2019, 04:19:51 PM
Dear Chris,

I just want to say that I really understand your point. Different Bible versions tell different things and that makes people confused. But the Word is still intact, no matter what people say. They are not there for people to mess with. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."- Matthew 7:7

God bless you brother.

I disagree with this. Even with this verse the wording changes dramatically between the different versions of the bible. The KJV does not even have the word "door" in it. Replacing the word "door" with the word "it" in the last sentence. Open door vs open it.  There are many instances of this where, on a verse level, i would not consider the verse intact. Hell for that matter I don't even know which of the 10 versions of the verse is the actual word of God.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 23, 2019, 04:39:45 PM
There are many cases where meaning is lost simply because there is not a direct translation from one language to another.

Aa was mentioned previously, interpretation also varies dependent on the time period and culture that is doing the interpreting.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Roundy on August 25, 2019, 02:50:19 PM
There's a sure way to find out the truth... Become an astronaut.

He's right. Surely the easiest way to get at the truth is to achieve something that historically less than 600 people have allegedly managed to do and go to space, I mean it's really that easy.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: ChrisTP on August 25, 2019, 10:21:24 PM
There's a sure way to find out the truth... Become an astronaut.

He's right. Surely the easiest way to get at the truth is to achieve something that historically less than 600 people have allegedly managed to do and go to space, I mean it's really that easy.
that you find it hard to become an astronaut doesn’t mean it’s not a sure way to find out the truth though. Besides, if I were a flat earther I wouldn’t be using small numbers as an example for impossibility.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 26, 2019, 12:21:40 AM
There's a sure way to find out the truth... Become an astronaut.

He's right. Surely the easiest way to get at the truth is to achieve something that historically less than 600 people have allegedly managed to do and go to space, I mean it's really that easy.
that you find it hard to become an astronaut doesn’t mean it’s not a sure way to find out the truth though. Besides, if I were a flat earther I wouldn’t be using small numbers as an example for impossibility.

If you did go into space and saw the truth, would anyone believe you?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: ChrisTP on August 26, 2019, 07:28:24 PM
Would it matter if anyone believes you? From what I can tell from this site no one will believe human accounts or photos that say or show the earth is a spheroid and the only way they would believe it is to see it for themselves. Unless they become an astronaut it’s pointless trying to convince them otherwise.

If a trusted flat earther did get to go into space I get the feeling other flat earthers would claim that person was brainwashed, bought out or delusional somehow if they came back saying it was a spheroid.

I don’t think the vast majority of flat earthers trust any of the flat earthers from TFES which pretty much rules out everyone here.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: timterroo on August 26, 2019, 08:45:46 PM
Would it matter if anyone believes you? From what I can tell from this site no one will believe human accounts or photos that say or show the earth is a spheroid and the only way they would believe it is to see it for themselves. Unless they become an astronaut it’s pointless trying to convince them otherwise.

If a trusted flat earther did get to go into space I get the feeling other flat earthers would claim that person was brainwashed, bought out or delusional somehow if they came back saying it was a spheroid.

I don’t think the vast majority of flat earthers trust any of the flat earthers from TFES which pretty much rules out everyone here.

Of course it matters if anyone believes you.

If nobody is going to believe it, is there any point in making it your life's mission to fly into space to prove a point? Probably not.....
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: ChrisTP on August 26, 2019, 08:59:01 PM
Would it matter if anyone believes you? From what I can tell from this site no one will believe human accounts or photos that say or show the earth is a spheroid and the only way they would believe it is to see it for themselves. Unless they become an astronaut it’s pointless trying to convince them otherwise.

If a trusted flat earther did get to go into space I get the feeling other flat earthers would claim that person was brainwashed, bought out or delusional somehow if they came back saying it was a spheroid.

I don’t think the vast majority of flat earthers trust any of the flat earthers from TFES which pretty much rules out everyone here.

Of course it matters if anyone believes you.

If nobody is going to believe it, is there any point in making it your life's mission to fly into space to prove a point? Probably not.....
Well if anyone did believe someone who went to space then we wouldn’t be having this discussion I guess. Don’t get me wrong, I believe astronauts went to space and I believe there are people on the ISS. I really have no reason not to believe it. Not a singe soul who’s been to space has come back saying the earth is flat though. Flat earthers seem to not believe this by default. I wonder if any single astronaut ever came out and said they saw a flat earth, would all the flat earthers suddenly believe them after screaming liars, fakes, “astronots” etc... I don’t think any flat earther will be able to come out saying they believe astronauts are telling the truth. So the only way IMO flat earthers will change their minds is if they go to space. Even then I’d bet some would still deny being wrong all this time out of sheer embarrassment.

Can any flat earther here honestly say if they went to space and found the earth to be a spheroid shape that they’d admit being wrong all this time about everything they believe regarding the shape of the earth and the government or anything else to do with this conspiracy? Or would they go quiet? Would they come out and say they were wrong and risk being called a liar as well?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: jerinr1 on August 27, 2019, 11:25:28 AM
Dear Chris,

I just want to say that I really understand your point. Different Bible versions tell different things and that makes people confused. But the Word is still intact, no matter what people say. They are not there for people to mess with. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."- Matthew 7:7

God bless you brother.

I disagree with this. Even with this verse the wording changes dramatically between the different versions of the bible. The KJV does not even have the word "door" in it. Replacing the word "door" with the word "it" in the last sentence. Open door vs open it.  There are many instances of this where, on a verse level, i would not consider the verse intact. Hell for that matter I don't even know which of the 10 versions of the verse is the actual word of God.

Dear iamcpc,

I really meant to say Chris that if you asked God for the truth, he would reveal it to you. Now since you have mentioned the issue with interpretation, doesn't it make sense when you see the similarity in those verses? Be it "door" or "it", what does it ultimately mean? It means that once a person asks for something, it will be given to him; if you seek, you will find it and if you knock, you will see a path. What do you knock on? A door, right? Ultimately it all means the same dear friend.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 28, 2019, 10:37:17 PM
Dear iamcpc,

I really meant to say Chris that if you asked God for the truth, he would reveal it to you. Now since you have mentioned the issue with interpretation, doesn't it make sense when you see the similarity in those verses? Be it "door" or "it", what does it ultimately mean? It means that once a person asks for something, it will be given to him; if you seek, you will find it and if you knock, you will see a path. What do you knock on? A door, right? Ultimately it all means the same dear friend.

Well there have been many situations where I went to a bible study group and we disagreed on the verse or the accuracy of the different translations. We would all sit down and pray for God to show us the truth between all these different personal interpretations and translations and, after praying, still had our differences.

There are many situations where people are googling ancient Hebrew and arguing semantics because that is the "truth" that God has revealed to them. Why would God reveal many different "truths" among a bible study group?
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: TomInAustin on August 29, 2019, 04:19:34 PM

Well there have been many situations where I went to a bible study group and we disagreed on the verse or the accuracy of the different translations. We would all sit down and pray for God to show us the truth between all these different personal interpretations and translations and, after praying, still had our differences.


What does that tell you?  Maybe a magic 8 ball would have worked better?

(https://d13ezvd6yrslxm.cloudfront.net/wp/wp-content/images/magic-8-ball-e1559651244938-700x387.jpg)
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: iamcpc on August 29, 2019, 11:59:05 PM
What does that tell you?  Maybe a magic 8 ball would have worked better?

This is the reason why I never really supported the biblical FE models. If God is this all powerful force could you really understand how he set up the universe to work and function down to an atomic level by reading a 2000 year old book? If you think the answer is yes then that is like spitting in the face of God.

I always felt the bible was more about how to save your soul instead of how the universe works.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: TomInAustin on August 30, 2019, 03:33:40 PM
What does that tell you?  Maybe a magic 8 ball would have worked better?

This is the reason why I never really supported the biblical FE models. If God is this all powerful force could you really understand how he set up the universe to work and function down to an atomic level by reading a 2000 year old book? If you think the answer is yes then that is like spitting in the face of God.

I always felt the bible was more about how to save your soul instead of how the universe works.

The Bible (and most other religious text) is all about primitive men trying to explain phenomenon that they didn't understand and using even older stories to do it.   People that take the bible literally are as ignorant of science as the authors were.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: Roundy on August 30, 2019, 05:19:29 PM
Flat Earth belief tied to Christianity is an extremely recent thing, relatively speaking. The Catholic Church, which represented the massive bulk of the religion for a millennium and a half, has always maintained that the Earth is spherical. I don't think the Bible was used as justification that the Earth is flat until the 19th century, and that only by a small number of extreme fundamentalist sects.

It is, of course, a myth that it was the prevailing belief that the Earth was flat until Columbus discovered America.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 01, 2019, 07:19:17 AM
Flat Earth belief tied to Christianity is an extremely recent thing, relatively speaking. The Catholic Church, which represented the massive bulk of the religion for a millennium and a half, has always maintained that the Earth is spherical. I don't think the Bible was used as justification that the Earth is flat until the 19th century, and that only by a small number of extreme fundamentalist sects.

It is, of course, a myth that it was the prevailing belief that the Earth was flat until Columbus discovered America.
Correct although Rowbotham and Shenton were both motivated by their interpretation of Scripture and modern FE conferences are quite heavy with Christian young earth creationists.
Ironically, FE belief almost seems to have become a religion.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: ashenlight on September 01, 2019, 08:53:45 PM
Quote
If nobody is going to believe it, is there any point in making it your life's mission to fly into space to prove a point? Probably not.....
I think it is safe to say that no one who has gone through the time and personal commitment which training to be an astronaut involves has put themselves through it just to prove to themselves that the Earth is not flat. It would be equally safe to say I think that the thought didn't even enter their minds.

Those who train to become astronauts (and of course simply completing the training doesn't guarantee you of being selected to go into space) do so for far more pertinent and specific reasons than to discover the true shape of the Earth.
Title: Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
Post by: jerinr1 on September 09, 2019, 05:57:18 AM
Having known that astronauts have seen the shape of the earth to be spherical, are we saying that they repeatedly lie to the media despite sending pictures all the time? That would be baseless. If all the planets in the universe are round in shape, why should earth alone be flat?