Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - iamcpc

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: October 22, 2019, 02:55:04 PM »
If I was after a purely poetic reply then that would be perfect.

Lets now try for a reply that actually tells me sonething useful.

There are a lot of FE models. The twinkling things in the night sky could be described very differently based on the different FE models:

1. They could be described as luminous elements
2. They could be described as giant balls of gas generating heat and light
3. They could be described as pieces of heaven in a more biblical FE model

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: October 03, 2019, 08:36:02 PM »
When your speed reaches 1/10 C you can observe relativistic effects and one of them is seeming increase in mass which in turn makes the force required to keep constant acceleration increase too (F = am).
Given a constant force accelerating you, you won't observe an increase in your mass.  However, a person with respect to whom your velocity is measured will see an increase in your mass.  Also, due to the Lorentz contraction along your line of flight, they will see your rulers (displacement measurement) shrink.  They will conclude that you will not measure any change in acceleration since they know that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, which itself is the rate of change of displacement.

I've been thinking about this. I can sense acceleration. I can feel it. If the car is accelerating I can feel the acceleration. On an airplane I can feel the acceleration. I can feel the thing that i'm on or in actively increasing it's velocity. Even when traveling vertically like on a slingshot or amusement park ride I can feel the change in my velocity. As I'm sitting in my desk I don't fee any change in my velocity. Is this planetary level acceleration different somehow so that it's undetectable?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: September 24, 2019, 06:03:18 PM »
In your FE Wiki page about astronomy you seem to (conveniently) overlook to mention that observation is very much part of the scientific method as well. The links below are just a few independent examples of many others I could list which mention the importance of observation in the scientific method.

Astronomers are expert observers in their field and if anything what you seemingly interpret as a limitation for astronomers in not being able directly interact with their field of study, I think that makes it even more a key aspect of true science. Very often the results of observations that have been made with telescopes directly can be explored further by building specialist equipment in carefully designed laboratory experiments.

So I think to suggest that astronomy is a 'pseudoscience' is not justified. 

You may be right but I also believe there is a point in comparing things like chemistry, biology, and physics in which you can experiment directly on things.

I believe that RE astronomy is more like a math than a science. Measuring and calculating cycles, positions, etc.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about a specific FE model.
« on: September 19, 2019, 10:01:35 PM »
If there is no dome/firmament and the earth had an edge outside of the ice wall and the earth is accelerating upwards is there any documentation, ideas, or theories on what is preventing the air from just flowing off the edge?

Pete I read that.

"If one could move away from the Antarctic rim into the uncharted tundra the surrounding temperatures, and therefore pressures, would drop lower and lower. "

This is assuming that, beyond the ice wall, there is uncharted tundra. In this situation what is happening makes perfect sense.

I'm asking specifically for the models where there is no uncharted tundra beyond the ice wall and the ice wall is the definite edge of the earth not the edge of the area that we have explored.

Flat Earth Community / Question about a specific FE model.
« on: September 19, 2019, 06:00:14 PM »
I have a question about a very specific FE model.

1. The base model is the flat disk ice wall edge model.
2. Within the subset of this model this is the no dome subset model.
3. Within the subset of the flat disk great ice wall no dome model this is the subset where the ice wall has an edge with space outside of the edge. The Earth is finite.
4. Within the rules defined above this model also has has UA as a gravity model.
5. In addition this model does not have a firmament

Now that I have outlined the basics of this model my question is this:

If there is no dome/firmament and the earth had an edge outside of the ice wall and the earth is accelerating upwards is there any documentation, ideas, or theories on what is preventing the air from just flowing off the edge?
In the dome/firmament models that has been used as an explanation as to what prevents the atmosphere from just blowing away.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bible Proof
« on: September 18, 2019, 01:49:28 PM »
NLT is a translation, but Strong's Concordance is not a translation. It's an index which shows you how the word is used elsewhere.

From the Strong's Concordance Wiki page:

The purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. This index allows a student of the Bible to re-find a phrase or passage previously studied. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible. In this way Strong provides an independent check against translations, and offers an opportunity for greater, and more technically accurate understanding of text.

Isn't Strong's Concordance still based on a translation, in this case, KJV? Perhaps I don't fully understand the breadth and depth of a concordance.


The bible was written in ancient hebrew/greek. Much like our language words could be spelled the same but have different definitions like the word "dove". It could be to jump into something head first like he dove into the bushes. It could also be a bird. Look at the dove flying above.

Our translations are peoples attempts and looking at these ancient Hebrew/greek words and looking at how they are used in verse/chapter they are in as well as how they have been used in other parts of the bible.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bible Proof
« on: September 16, 2019, 05:01:18 PM »

You may be correct. Strong's Concordance index says that it primarily means 'extremity':

Not all of the versions of the Bible translate it as corners. New Living Translation translates Isaiah 11:12 as:

"He will raise a flag among the nations and assemble the exiles of Israel. He will gather the scattered people of Judah from the ends of the earth."

When looking into an ancient book written in an ancient foreign language with the added complexity of it being considered the word of God it gives us humans a lot of room for personal interpretation in these kinds of things.

To add further confusion the ancient texts have been translated dozens of different ways by various people, kings, organizations throughout the years.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bible Proof
« on: September 16, 2019, 01:46:58 AM »
All Around, gets it all WRONG. He or she never mentions what WIND is? Why? Well, because wind is Gods Spirit. So if you were God wouldn't you want to surround the circle of earth with your SPIRIT, evenly spaced so one can't escape it. What you end up with is a square over laid over the circle of the earth or 4 corners. John 3:8 (kjv) describes it. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

Understanding the Word of God is so easy once one accepts the Gift of Salvation. Or you can listen to scientist which I have ZERO faith in.

This is a very interesting interpretation. The problem that I have with this is that it says the corners of the earth not the corners of the spirit of God. When we had these sort of debates in a bible group we would always look at the ancient Hebrew. Many times this give clarification to exactly what the words were most likely to have meant.

There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:

Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.

Paioh means “a geometric corner”

Ziovyoh means “right angle” or “corner”

Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.

Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered Earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.

Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antartica Flights
« on: September 12, 2019, 07:10:22 PM »
Hello guys, I would like to know the Flat Earthers opinion about the Antartica sighseeing flights. If you dont know about these flights I leave you a trip report of one of this flights.


It really depends on the flat earth models. In a flat disk FE model in which there is no Antarctica and instead a great ice wall there are a lot of explanations such as:

1. There are plenty of videos showing the great ice wall.
2. That video is fake
3. That video was not a video of the great ice wall. It could likely have been a video of a large iceberg or the north pole.

For the FE models which have not converted the area known as the South Pole in the RE model to a great ice wall the response is:

Yep. That's someone flying over the south pole.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 11, 2019, 07:06:59 PM »
Receding from curving light rays also results in greater curvature with distance.

But I'm confused. From 21.6 miles away in that video a third of the building was hidden. Not far from 200 feet. And yet you claim

it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

So you were further away. And your observation height was lower. Why were curving light rays not a problem for you?
And it can't just have been conditions on the day because you claim you can repeat this any time you want:

"Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."

It's a shame that all the times you have done this you have never actually documented the observation. Are we supposed to just take your word for it? As someone once said:
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Here's another example of the "Bishop Experiment" Light from sea level being visible from a distance which should be "impossible" based on the RE model.

If he was further away and saw a different observation it was under different atmospheric and optical conditions which affected the observation.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 10, 2019, 10:08:38 PM »

Why did you cut half of the image off, specifically removing the Flat Earth Height Hidden table?

It's a moot point. the RE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see. In addition the FE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see.

To me the take away is that you can't see a ship sinking over the ocean and promptly claim the shape of the earth is ___________. You must at least attempt to factor in chaotic atmospheric and optical variables which have been demonstrated, over and over again, to have a significant impact on what our human brains perceive.

The sinking doesn't match a Flat Earth? Our minds are blown, assuredly.

The matter is demonstrated to be an illusion. The mechanism which causes it is irrelevant. Since it is an illusion it cannot be used as evidence for a Globe Earth. Aristotile's sinking ship proof is inconsistent.  An inconsistent proof is not proof of a globe.

Another question I have is when the FE predictions are made what FE model or FE system is being used to calculate those predictions? Maybe there is a more accurate FE prediction system out there?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 10, 2019, 08:12:45 PM »
Both the Turning Torso Tower pictures and Bobby's photos had curvature which changed with every shot. Pretty poor effort if you guys think that a sinking effect which changes by the hour is proof of your ball world.

"No, no, no... That was the curvature of the earth +/- refraction"  ::)


There have been other experiments too. I forgot the link, but even Bobby acknowledged that flashing mirror experiment demonstrated that the idea that view distance predicts that the Earth is a sphere or oblate spheroid is, at the very least, in this example incorrect. The results were similar to your bishop experiment where they were able to see something, at sea level, from much further than what is predicted possible in the RE model.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bible Proof
« on: September 09, 2019, 03:32:03 PM »

And yet in Isaiah 40:22 it says God sits above the circle of the earth

Does a circle have corners?

This is another verse I’ve seen used as defence of a Flat Earth. Aha! Circle, you see! Flat!

Although if you’re looking down at a sphere, what shape do you see...?

The four corners of the earth was and remains a turn of phrase. The Bible is not a science book

“The Bible shows us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”
- Galileo

This is why anyone who thinks the earth has "corners" should join a bible study group and do some biblical research.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 06, 2019, 07:56:22 PM »
Writing up a scientific experiment in detail is part of the scientific method specifically so that others can do the experiments for themselves. When other people replicate your experiment (which they can do because you carefully documented everything about how you performed it), their results will either confirm yours or cast doubt, opening new avenues for investigation.

This argument goes both ways there are FE experiments which don't have an encyclopedia of documentation. There are also RE experiments which many RE proponents stand up and proudly say EARTH ROUND when many variables are undocumented.

Here's an example:
Look these shadows are a different length the earth is round! But shadow A was 90 degrees and 80% humidity with a high pollen count and shadow B was 80 degrees , 70% humidity and a low pollen count.  You're not comparing apples to apples here. You have not even made the slightest attempt to determine how refraction and chaotic atmospheric conditions are affecting the length of the shadows.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Which is right?
« on: August 30, 2019, 05:24:25 PM »
It does seem as if to FE believers, any aspect of RE that cannot be fully documented or explained is taken as a reason why it should be dismissed.

This really depends on the person. It's true there is a lot of conformation bias in the FE community. As a counter point there is a lot of conformation bias in the RE community too.

I don't take the evidence as why the RE is wrong and 100% the earth is flat. I take the evidence as reasons why the earth may not function exactly the way we were taught. The evidence shows that researching alternatives and asking questions about why this evidence supports other models is something worth doing.

 Yet FE it seems need multiple and sometimes conflicting models in order to explain the vast majority of what RE theory can. So perhaps you might like to try and get your own side in order first before you go criticising the other.

Yet FE it seems need multiple and sometimes conflicting models in order to explain the vast majority of what RE theory can.

I can freely admit that there are a decent amount of  people in the FE community which are "out there" or pretty clearly suffering from some sort of mental illness or heavily influenced by conformation bias. In one persons FE model anything not visible with the naked eye didn't exist. Atoms, molecules, bacteria, dust mites, viruses, air, electricity which was not in the form of lightning, radio signals, etc.

I personally HATE the flat disk model which is so aggressively supported in the wiki here. Based on my personal travels and observations this does not match realty in many ways and there are models which are much more accurate.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How could a compass work?
« on: August 30, 2019, 05:21:27 PM »
For a flat Earth, disc shaped with North Pole in the middle, how can an ordinary old-school magnetic compass work?

If you were somewhere in the middle, the needle would perhaps align itself facing North, but if you travelled the Earth in a circle,
staying somewhere closer to some circular South Pole, the South direction would always change to the point of the outside of the disc closest to you.

In the flat disk north pole center the word South does not really apply as it does not have a south pole.

I would imagine that how the compass works is that it points toward the north pole which is at the center of the flat disk. If you travel to anywhere on the circle it will always point to the center of the circle which is the north pole.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« 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.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« 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?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Which is right?
« on: August 26, 2019, 04:22:11 PM »
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, so what? 

So there is something inherently flawed with the physical laws which we were told our universe operates. Either those physical laws are missing something or the universe operates in a different way than previously thought.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Which is right?
« on: August 25, 2019, 01:39:58 AM »
So what part of your own research has led you to dismiss the widely held acceptance that the Earth is not a sphere?

There are different levels of acceptance. There are people who 100% believe the earth is a sphere and there are 100% who believe the earth is a flat disk with an ice wall and a dome.

For the there are several bits of evidence which support the idea that the earth might not function as a well as we were told as a sphere, globe, spheroid, or oblate spheroid.

In the RE model the earth is orbiting the sun and the moon is orbiting the earth. With all are knowledge of gravity we are unable to calculate this orbit. Mathematically it does not work. Google the three body problem.

The three body problem is either impossible or virtually impossible. The problem with the round earth model is that there are more than three bodies in our solar system. There are hundreds. With the laws of gravity being unable to explain 3 of these bodies let alone 300 it's evidence that maybe the solar system functions in a different way.

Many people have come here saying that the sinking ship effect has come as a result of the earth being round yet, it has been demonstrated many times, that the sinking ship effect can also be caused by refraction or chaotic atmospheric conditions.

The bishop experiment is one which had a similar experiment done with mirrors which, a very firm 100% round earther admired that it was evidence that supported a flat earth. to name a few.

I'm definitely an anomaly here because i disagree with most of the traditional FE models and I can freely admit that there is evidence which supports the RE model. It's about being open minded and accepting the evidence no matter what it supports. This is why I can admit there is FE evidence. Tom Bishop has done an excellent job of putting it into the wiki.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32  Next >