The Earth is Not a Globe!?! Is God literal, water above and below the firmament?

[shadow]

Yes, I am going to send a video, as you did not say who you wanted to explain the sunrise/set with. The man in this video does a fine job, and I hope you watch it. I have a feeling from experience in other subjects with people that you have made up your mind the flat earth is 100% garbage, and therefore it would be a waste of all of our time to walk you through things. It is more efficient to defer you to someone else who has already done great work in a video (and giving them some good credit), and if that does not cause you to question even 1% than indeed walking you through it would waste everyone's time. (key point you did earlier was mocking, even if it was supposedly done in harmless fun, it is that exact behavior I have dealt with for years from various people that lets me know you (like them) are 100% against whatever we are discussing)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Kl5T1Ob6M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A "great video"?? Uh, no.
As has already been pointed out, nothing was level or flat. All it did was prove the scenario had an angle to it, or that the earth is curved. Do you see the same problem with how he made his video?

Another thing to note, and something I suspect other flat earth vids will share, the sunrise is behind clouds. I'll tell you why- it makes the sun look smaller. Watch some real videos of the sun rising or setting and you'll see that the sun never changes size from sun-up to sundown. If the flat earth model were true, the sun would start out small because it's further away, at it's peek it would be largest, then it would start to get smaller until it disappears or sets. The same principle exists when a car is coming towards you from a far distance. It starts small then gets bigger as it goes past you, then it gets smaller and smaller until it disappears. Of course, if the earth were flat then you could get a telescope and follow it even further. That's an issue isn't it? The sun sets or disappears at the same time no matter if you have a telescope or not. Do you see this as a problem with the flat earth theory?
Ever been on a cruise?? Why is it that after so many miles you can't even see the mountains anymore? Do telescopes cease to work when looking parallel? No, it's because of the curvature of the earth. That's why you can't see Hawaii from California, but you can see Saturn's rings. Heck, you should be able to see the Tetons from Nebraska. But you can't because the earth has a curvature.

Do you see the same flaws in the video or do you take it as being credible? If it's credible then walk me through it. I'm game.

[braingrunt]

One of the things that convinces me most that there is nothing in this flat earth idea, are the countless flawed explanations for things like constant angular velocity of the sun, sunrise and sunset positions, coriolis, tides, etc. After so many failed attempts, I'm convinced they are trying to pin a tail on a holographic donkey.
And many of the videos out there are so mortifyingly bad that I'm embarrassed and my heart sinks. Yet, for the most part, I have tried to stay respectful in this debate.
Plus I believe the BOM.

There is only ONE class of videos out there which have any credibility left with me, and those are the water curvature experiments. I do not know what, if anything they've done wrong in them. So far I haven't checked their math. But I posted a video which I think shows a counterexample to theirs, a few posts back. One way I view it as superior to SOME of the other videos out there, is that it's on a lake which is largely unaffected by tides which may throw the water out of level (by how much if any I don't know.)

And I don't say that space agencies have been honest all the time. Maybe some or all moon videos were faked. Maybe some of those vids are underwater. That whole class of arguments is completely irrelevant to me. But I believe we have satellites up there. The evidence for that, to me, seems good.

[Robin Hood]

I make it a rule that I will not post videos, no matter how convincing.
There are two reasons for this.
1. I don't know how to post videos.
2. I run the risk of abdicating my critical thinking and replacing it with someone else's.

There are a lot of very convincing videos out there, on both sides of the argument. The problem as I see it is that proponents of both views are, for the most part, seriously polarized in their positions.
Instead of reacting to a video that clearly demonstrates it is possible to see ships, islands, cities etc when they should be obscured by hundreds of feet of curvature in an inquisitive way, they will counter-act with a video showing a spacewalk. Thus both positions talk past each other.

I take a more moderate position.
Does a city 60 miles away and clearly seen across water demonstrate that the curvature is optically absent? Of course it does. Is this proof the earth is flat? No it isn't. It's evidence that our understanding of what we should and shouldn't experience is mistaken. In other words we, meaning human beings, have made inaccurate assumptions.
The tragedy is that we defend those assumptions as if they were our own personal property.

For me, I observe that the sun appears to pass overhead, as does the moon. The stars appear to move in a perfectly circular rotation and without any variation in the night sky. The earth on which I stand appears to be motionless and when I fly from the UK to the US or Canada the flight times appear to contradict the coriolis effect.
But I do not describe myself as a flat-earther. This is because I accept that there are other explanations for some of these things. I don't know for sure if those explanations are correct and, to be frank, no one does.
Some think they know, but that isn't the same thing.

Some scientists have recently theorized that we are actually experiencing a Matrix type simulation. That nothing is "real" in the traditional sense.
In such a universe anything, including a whole spectrum of contradictions, are to be expected.

[Ungläubige]

From my viewpoint, the 'globe' model of the earth and it's relation to the solar system is the best for explaining: the path of the sun, the path of the moon, moon phases, the differing motion of the stars in each hemisphere (star trails), the seasons, lunar and solar eclipses, and many other observable phenomena. Can anyone on here describe a 'flat earth' model that can explain and predict ALL of the above, or provide a link to one that does?

I have also first hand experience with GPS devices and satellite television dishes - in both heavily developed and in remote locations. These are direct evidence that there are satellites in the sky orbiting a 'global' earth. Basic math and physics concepts can explain how these satellites can stay in orbit around the earth for many years without unlimited fuel for propulsion. Many different governments and private agencies have put satellites into orbit. Are there credible 'flat earth' explanations for placing and keeping satellites in the sky?

I also have an app on my smart phone that shows the path of the ISS around the 'globe'. It orbits approximately every 92 minutes and this app shows its position above the earth at any given time - and predicts its path for days in advance. It will display the times and exact locations in the sky to observe the ISS from your own location. Twice this week, I was able to be outside at the right times and with clear enough skies to observe the ISS travelling across the sky. I even took a screen shot of the app and a night vision photo of it with my iphone. Anyone, anywhere on the earth can do this. There is definitely an object up there on a predictable trajectory travelling at a high rate of speed. I would love to see a map or model of a 'flat earth' and the corresponding path of the ISS that would allow it to be tracked over any point on the earth on a predictable schedule.

Show me a reasonable alternative to a 'global' earth that works for the above cases, and I'll consider it.

[Durzan]

The earth isn't flat. We live on a donut shaped world! (/jk)

[braingrunt]

Does a city 60 miles away and clearly seen across water demonstrate that the curvature is optically absent? Of course it does.

The most important question in that scenario, what is the height of the observer above sea level, and what is the height of the other city above sea level.

I'll admit the following:
My calculations, if correct, tell me that
IF the viewer is at sea level
IF the other city is precisely at sea level (of course it's going to be a little above at least)
IF the light does not refract
THEN about 1200 ft of the other location should be hidden. Thats alot. But you'd have to work hard to convince me of at least the height variables and how much if any discrepancy there is. This would be a challenge because you'd have to calculate the height of the visible portion and compare it to reliable elevation and total height data.

[Durzan]

On a more serious note, I have flown to England and Back no problem... and Likewise my dad has flown to the Philippines multiple times. If that combined with all the stuff NASA does doesn't prove the earth is round, then I'll be a monkey's uncle (Jokes on you, I am an only child, so that is impossible, unless my dad decides its funny to literally adopt a couple of monkeys)

[Silver]

On a more serious note, I have flown to England and Back no problem... and Likewise my dad has flown to the Philippines multiple times. If that combined with all the stuff NASA does doesn't prove the earth is round, then I'll be a monkey's uncle (Jokes on you, I am an only child, so that is impossible, unless my dad decides its funny to literally adopt a couple of monkeys)

Where, pray tell, is the country Back?

If your dad adopts a couple of monkeys (not sure why it would require more than one since the apostrophe in "monkey's uncle" precedes the "s"), said monkeys would be your brothers or sisters, not your nephews. For you to be a monkey's uncle, one of your siblings would have to give birth to or adopt a monkey which you have stated is not possible given your only child status. However, of even greater impossibility is the very utterance of "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle." by any truthful life form as the lower orders of primates have not developed the requisite speech capability, other than those in the movie called The Beginning of the Origin of the Start of the Planet of the Apes or something like that.

[Robin Hood]

On a more serious note, I have flown to England and Back no problem... and Likewise my dad has flown to the Philippines multiple times. If that combined with all the stuff NASA does doesn't prove the earth is round, then I'll be a monkey's uncle (Jokes on you, I am an only child, so that is impossible, unless my dad decides its funny to literally adopt a couple of monkeys)

Not sure why flying to England (aka the promised land) and back proves the earth is spherical. :-\

[cayenne]

Your funny durzan, gave me a needed chuckle.

Something I am trying to figure out is the air routes. First off if you look at a variety of round earth maps many of the dimensions seem off. For example England on some round earth maps appears way way larger than it really is compared to the United States in return is way smaller than it should be. The same goes for the typical Flat Earth Map you Google. The dimensions to me are obviously way off. Being that we have a mapping problem across the board the Northern Hemisphere flight routes favor a flat Earth map and the southern hemisphere routes favor a round Earth map from what we can pull up on google for example. It's funny to me that both models show the United States way smaller than it should be and europe way bigger. How how about Greenland laugh out loud.

Anyhow, since my family member flies commercially across the Pacific and the Atlantic I have asked him about his routes. When he flies from Los Angeles to Hong Kong for example on a round Earth Map traveling way up to Alaska and then way down to Hong Kong is ridiculously out of route but that's how they fly. The same can be said for a route from Miami to London... the typical route flies way up over Canada when on a globe model a straight line across the middle of the Atlantic is much closer. Yet on a flat Earth Map you can see those routes are much much closer using a straight line on the flat map which is how they actually fly it.

Now the southern hemisphere creates a problem for the flat map when you're flying from Australia to South America. So we have each model in my opinion is favored for different things. I certainly will not discount the Flat Earth model because flight travel across the southern hemisphere from Australia to South America. I certainly will not discount the round earth model because flights are going seemingly way out of route in the northern hemisphere. So now the question I'm having is the mapping programs that we have obviously have problems with the dimentions that's what I need to figure out with the Flat Earth model and round.

This is fun for me, I hope it is for you all to.... and since I am a theologian not a scientist I certainly cannot answer many things yet on this, and I am not taking this too seriously if you know what I mean in proper context. Something is going here and yes NASA is full of lies, but why

[shadow]

On a more serious note, I have flown to England and Back no problem... and Likewise my dad has flown to the Philippines multiple times. If that combined with all the stuff NASA does doesn't prove the earth is round, then I'll be a monkey's uncle (Jokes on you, I am an only child, so that is impossible, unless my dad decides its funny to literally adopt a couple of monkeys)

Not sure why flying to England (aka the promised land) and back proves the earth is spherical. :-\

Why is the south pole always getting the same amount of light from the sun depending on the time of year on a global earth? For example, in the winter, the sun always shines but in the summer there are times when the sun never shines. It's applied all across the region all at once. If one part is getting light then, depending on clouds, the rest of the south pole is getting light. How can that be possible with the flat earth theory?

flat earthers are behind the curve

th6L21H6JK.jpg (17.67 KiB) Viewed 1315 times

[shadow]

For example England on some round earth maps appears way way larger than it really is compared to the United States

The English feel they need to compensate for something I guess.

[Silver]

Not only is the earth flat, it's dark.

flat earth.jpg (47.54 KiB) Viewed 1312 times

[cayenne]

For example England on some round earth maps appears way way larger than it really is compared to the United States

The English feel they need to compensate for something I guess.

LoL

[shadow]

The same can be said for a route from Miami to London... the typical route flies way up over Canada when on a globe model a straight line across the middle of the Atlantic is much closer. Yet on a flat Earth Map you can see those routes are much much closer using a straight line on the flat map which is how they actually fly it.

They don't fly "way over Canada" and the latitude of Canada and London are about the same so it makes sense a plane would fly up that way.

map.gif (15.09 KiB) Viewed 1309 times

map.gif (15.09 KiB) Viewed 1309 times

[Silver]

Why is the south pole always getting the same amount of light from the sun depending on the time of year on a global earth? For example, in the winter, the sun always shines but in the summer there are times when the sun never shines. It's applied all across the region all at once. If one part is getting light then, depending on clouds, the rest of the south pole is getting light. How can that be possible with the flat earth theory?

Do you mean to tell me...I mean are you seriously telling me...that there really are places where the sun don't shine?!?! I guess all those bullies who picked on me when I was growing up were right.

[Robin Hood]

For example England on some round earth maps appears way way larger than it really is compared to the United States

The English feel they need to compensate for something I guess.

No we don't.
We're just content to sit here and watch the kids. ;)

[shadow]

For example England on some round earth maps appears way way larger than it really is compared to the United States

The English feel they need to compensate for something I guess.

No we don't.
We're just content to sit here and watch the kids. ;)

Don't you have an HOA you're trying to get out of? Brexit.

[JohnnyL]

The same can be said for a route from Miami to London... the typical route flies way up over Canada when on a globe model a straight line across the middle of the Atlantic is much closer. Yet on a flat Earth Map you can see those routes are much much closer using a straight line on the flat map which is how they actually fly it.

They don't fly "way over Canada" and the latitude of Canada and London are about the same so it makes sense a plane would fly up that way.

map.gif
map.gif

Are the pathways on the first two maps supposed to be 3D, or flat?

[cayenne]

What you can do is take an earth globe (like at home) and measure the distance from lets say Los Angeles to Hong Kong in a straight line across the central pacific. Now measure all the way up to Alaska and back down to Hong Kong. Big difference in mileage, yet the airlines go up to Alaska per normal routing. Now, find a random flat earth map on google, and measure from La to Hong Kong and you will find a pretty straight line, the ones that the actual airlines and cargo routes fly. This is odd for sure. I am not buying the whole jet stream thing some have argued as an excuse, that is way out of route for that to be relevant especially because the routes go the same northern route both ways. I can't remember exactly right now what my pilot family member said, but when he flew recently from Lax to Sydney, it was another weird round earth routing.

oh ya, google "round earth" and look at the supposed "real images" from space. One has Africa and Arabia practically in the North Pole (I guess Europe would be the pole lol) Another one shows the United States so big, it literally takes up half the globe. Who do these people think they are kidding with these fake images? A lot of people! Yet NASA admits to the cgi stuff as well. Real or cgi? through the Van Allen belts in 1969, or as they admit today, never been through them? What a mess.

I still am thinking there is an issue with mapping accuracies, and the real question is can a realistic flat earth map be made with known measurements that explains the non stop flights from Sydney and Auckland to South America?

[cayenne]

Not only is the earth flat, it's dark.
flat earth.jpg

Ok, I have to admit that made me laugh really hard.

[sandman45]

I agree with you...quantum mechanics comes to mind. The one thing I am pretty sure about is ... NASA lies, and so do the people on tv. So yes, the earth is optically flat. We are starting to believe, perspective is everything (insert Pres. Uchtdorf talk about Blind men and the elephant).

Don't forget the government and the schools

[Lyndap]

Interesting info. Science teaches that 80% of the world's water is underneath the floor of the ocean. That is particularly interesting when reading about the flood at Noah's time where it says something about God broke open the great deep and caused the water to come forth. That would be water above and below a firmament.

[cappaccio]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 ... /98154504/

Rivers in the sky......first I've read about this type of weather pattern.....

[Kitkat]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 ... /98154504/

Rivers in the sky......first I've read about this type of weather pattern.....

Thanks for sharing. This invites the thought of rivers above the firmament coming down through who knows what holes in what could be a dome over a more flat earth, which would add to or take from the evaporation cycle we are taught in school which causes these rivers in the sky?