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

[Kitkat]

I didn't say you were a lunatic.
My apologies... you said it exactly, "inhabited by lunatics and to be avoided" I now see your righteousness and superior knowledge and too intellectual to stoop to such lowly conversations about detestable flat earth concepts... I now see clearly where I am not welcome in your perfect world where all are (opposites of lunatic) right, bright, stable, nimble, clever, smart, Sharp-witted, weighty, humorless, ultrasmart, earnest, sobersided, solemn, balanced, lucid, serious, Compos-mentis, sane, unsmiling, grave, brainy, clearheaded, sedate, uncomic, no-nonsense, staid, keen, hyperintelligent, sharp, fast, brilliant, severe, quick-witted, intelligent, supersmart, alert, exceptional, normal, quick, sober, po-faced..

I said or meant that most people coming on to this forum for the first time would think the forum a host for lunatics after seeing a 'serious' ongoing topic refuting the globe-like earth. That's simply a fact.
This type of "I know for a fact that most people coming not his forum THINK..." a certain way smells heavy of D&C 131:27 to us... "dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness"

You can't know what others think coming for the first time to this forum, maybe one or two who spoke about it, that is completely out of anyone's capacity unless they are heavily judgemental and believe they know other's motives, hearts, thoughts, etc.. Do you really stand by that statement that you know for a fact that is how the majority of people think coming to this forum?

I've already seen that attitude about this forum in other forums based on much less controversial topics discussed here. Of course, others might say: Wow, this is a really open-minded forum. This is the place for me!
Empty argument here. I can say the exact same thing entirely to the opposite if I were to lump everyone into my narrow bias as well. What is so controversial and offensive to you in this? Is this how you will treat your child if he or she comes to you asking questions about a flat earth, will you say, "Son / Daughter.... YOU ARE A FREAKING LUNATIC! and an embarrassment to the family...? =; "

And regarding your comment about Joseph Smith and his first vision, do you understand that experiences of the 'Spirit', are seldom transferable, except by the same Spirit? Science deals with the 5 senses.

If you have had a spiritual confirmation confirming that the Pearl of Great Price is true and correct, that is wonderful. If you make the same claim about the earth being flat . . . sorry, but it would make me doubt any other claims you make about the Spirit confirming this or that for you.

And once again, "Being skeptical regarding the claims of Nephi or Noah that they were going to build boats is in an entirely different category than disputing the existing facts supporting a globe-like earth." As are Moses believing that the Red Sea would part, or Joseph Smith having an actual experience of God and his Son visiting him in resurrected bodies. Do you understand the differences??

From your responses, I doubt it.
Two words. D&C 131:27.

To use your own tactic.

Do you understand that scripture? I doubt it from your responses.

Pretty dismissive isn't it? No thanks to any more of my time with someone who "knows for a fact" what others intelligence and understanding are. Borderline abusive, all too familiar spirit in the LDS culture, esp. on this forum, albeit passive aggressive, it is abuse, telling someone what they do and don't understand, as if you were the all knowing demi-god with stuardship over their understanding. good luck with that.

Furthermore this same type of dismissive, "i know what you are, what you don't get, etc." is exactly the spirit the Church takes when one has a sincere question. This is deeper than (to use your own approach) you understand I fear... I doubt you will get it, because "i know for a fact" your type which is spoken of in many private facebook groups for a fact... see the problem with your approach yet? ;) - why would anyone want to join a church with such a brick wall manner of thinking?

I think we will find better company with the Lehi's, Samuel the Lamanites, and Christ where they were not so keen on the majority opinions and facts, "scientific tools and all".

[Finrock]

Your post here is a little confusing to me. I'm just being forthright, not implying or saying anything about you. It is a good chance it is just the fact that I haven't presented what I'm asking in a way that makes sense to you.

In any case, so that I can be sure I understand what you are saying better, is the one principle that it all comes down to for you the principle that man cannot be saved in ignorance?

At the moment I believe the earth is a globe, but I'm not asking you questions in order to prove my position or to convince you to believe anything other than what you believe. I am asking as one who might be asking someone what would it do for me if I decided to pursue this avenue of abandoning what I currently believe about the earth and adopting this position about the earth that you believe?

Assuming the one principle that it all comes down to for you is the principle that man cannot be saved in ignorance, do you believe that I have not been saved since I do not believe that the earth is flat or not global? I guess another way of asking this is that is this the type of knowledge upon which salvation is conditioned or contingent upon?

-Finrock

What do you think the Lord meant when he said, Man cannot be saved in ignorance? What does that mean to you?

I cannot be saved if I think Buddha is who will save me can I? That is ignorance. Agree? Christ is salvation. Coming to him. Therefore I cannot be saved in the ignorance of thinking Buddha will save me.

The "one point it comes down to for us" is directly related to this thread, flat earth, and any "conspiracy" like it. That is what I meant by the one principle it ("it" being all these conspiracies) all comes down to us, ie. like polygamy I mentioned in the same answer.

We can not be blessed in a certain way, because we were ignorant to the commandment or principle required for that blessing upon which it was predicated. We could not be saved or blessed in our ignorance, we could not progress until we unlearned what we thought we knew, how we thought God worked with His children, and relearned the correct way (aka repenting of unbelief).

I believe the plan of salvation is very simply having faith in Jesus Christ, repenting, being baptized by water AND spirit, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Once you have received the Holy Ghost, you have fulfilled the plan of salvation and are saved. Jesus came to earth in order to fulfill this very important, essential, and critical step in the Father's Eternal Plan of Happiness. Receiving the Holy Ghost means we have entered in the gateway of the Celestial Kingdom and Christ's purposes have been fulfilled. We are thus saved. If we don't understand this or recognize this or we are ignorant of what the plan of salvation is, we cannot be saved. To be saved requires that a person know that they have been saved. They must know that they have fulfilled the requirements of the plan of salvation.

The plan of salvation should not be confused with the Father's Eternal Plan of Happiness, which encompasses a lot more, but until we have fulfilled the Plan of Salvation, we should not even worry about the rest of the Father's plan. We need to keep our sight on the most immediate target that is before us.

I can be ignorant to scientific facts and still be saved. Just for your information, I am saved. Jesus Christ told me so. I am not ignorant to this fact and I know that I am saved. I do not believe in a flat earth, but I don't condemn you for believing in it nor do I think you are a lunatic. I particularly appreciate the principle you are sharing concerning how we should become as little children and be ready to have God rock our paradigms. That is a good principle to live by. It is in fact essential as you are saying that it is. I also appreciate that you are advocating that we have a relationship with Jesus Christ in a way that we allow Him to coach us, teach us, to guide us. I know by experience that Jesus does in fact operate in such a way. He is a wonderful teacher and He does, without a doubt, help us to understand ideas we may have difficulty understanding on our own. I am experiencing all of these things without the belief of a flat earth.

As far as Buddha, it is actually my belief that Christ is known by many names through-out the earth and through-out the ages. If you study the principles that Buddha teaches, you will most definitely find the principles of Christ, because they are the same. I have no doubt that there are many believers of Buddha who will be found in the Celestial realm, because they were living the principles of Christ under a different title.

-Finrock

[Kitkat]

I do not believe in a global earth....

Typo in a very sincere awesome reply... had to at least take advantage of it this once.

[Finrock]

I do not believe in a global earth....

Typo in a very sincere awesome reply... had to at least take advantage of it this once.

Oops. Yes, I mean I believe in a global earth. :))

-Finrock

[Kitkat]

I believe the plan of salvation is very simply having faith in Jesus Christ, repenting, being baptized by water AND spirit, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Once you have received the Holy Ghost, you have fulfilled the plan of salvation and are saved. Jesus came to earth in order to fulfill this very important, essential, and critical step in the Father's Eternal Plan of Happiness. Receiving the Holy Ghost means we have entered in the gateway of the Celestial Kingdom and Christ's purposes have been fulfilled. We are thus saved. If we don't understand this or recognize this or we are ignorant of what the plan of salvation is, we cannot be saved. To be saved requires that a person know that they have been saved. They must know that they have fulfilled the requirements of the plan of salvation.

Completely agreed. Well put.

The plan of salvation should not be confused with the Father's Eternal Plan of Happiness, which encompasses a lot more, but until we have fulfilled the Plan of Salvation, we should not even worry about the rest of the Father's plan. We need to keep our sight on most immediate target that is before us.

That is how we understand it, makes sense.

I can be ignorant to scientific facts and still be saved.

Yes! Little Children are a beautiful case in point.

Just for your information, I am saved. Jesus Christ told me so. I am not ignorant to this fact and I know that I am saved.

Beautiful. We rejoice that you have such a witness.
I do not believe in a global Flat (semi-auto perceiving your intent auto-correct) earth, but I don't condemn you for believing in it nor do I think you are a lunatic. I particularly appreciate the principle you are sharing concerning how we should become as little children and be ready to have God rock our paradigms. That is a good principle to live by. It is in fact essential as you are saying that it is. I also appreciate that you are advocating that we have a relationship with Jesus Christ in a way that we allow Him to coach us, teach us, to guide us. I know by experience that Jesus does in fact operate in such a way. He is a wonderful teacher and He does, without a doubt, help us to understand ideas we may have difficulty understanding on our own. I am experiencing all of these things without the belief of a flat earth.

What an example of living the gospel. Thanks for this type of love, disagreeing without condemning, what we feel the gospel SHOULD be like. Very refreshing.

As far as Buddha, it is actually my belief that Christ is known by many names through-out the earth and through-out the ages. If you study the principles that Buddha teaches, you will most definitely find the principles of Christ, because they are the same. I have no doubt that there are many believers of Buddha who will be found in the Celestial realm, because they were living the principles of Christ under a different title.

We believe Christ means it when he said he can lay down his live and take it up again. Don't know what it means entirely, a topic for another discussion I'm sure, but He does His own work of bringing about immortality and eternal life of man perfectly, it's His work.

In similar light to your thoughts on Buddha, The Late War book, written before Book of Mormon, which many use to debunk the veracity of the book of mormon, only enhances it for us, as God is simply speaking truth in another book in another format and context, and is no respecter of persons, but loves all His children, and is a beautiful message very similar to that of the Book of Mormon giving us a deeper witness that God works as he pleases to reach all His children, whether through Buddha, or the The Late War, for their salvation.

To clarify further your earlier questions, the one principle "it" (the gospel restored, not these "conspiracies") all comes down to is the Love of God (Tree of Life), which cleaving to Christ (iron rod) leads anyone towards.
-Finrock

[Kitkat]

Michaelson Morely Experiment... results in NULL when measuring light waves through "Aether", showing the earth is NOT rotating around the sun... Science world of the time couldn't accept this result.

Einstein then came up with a way to abolish the "Aether" with a theory rather than accept the earth was not rotating around the sun.

Anyone have more insights into the findings of the Morley Experiment. It seems physics has been based on Einstein's theory more than actuality from their experiments. Morley's experiment proves the earth does not move but is stationery, what am I missing here?

[larsenb]

. . . . . . My apologies... you said it exactly, "inhabited by lunatics and to be avoided" I now see your righteousness and superior knowledge and too intellectual to stoop to such lowly conversations about detestable flat earth concepts... I now see clearly where I am not welcome in your perfect world where all are (opposites of lunatic) right, bright, stable, nimble, clever, smart, Sharp-witted, weighty, humorless, ultrasmart, earnest, sobersided, solemn, balanced, lucid, serious, Compos-mentis, sane, unsmiling, grave, brainy, clearheaded, sedate, uncomic, no-nonsense, staid, keen, hyperintelligent, sharp, fast, brilliant, severe, quick-witted, intelligent, supersmart, alert, exceptional, normal, quick, sober, po-faced. . . .

This type of "I know for a fact that most people coming not his forum THINK..." a certain way smells heavy of D&C 131:27 to us... "dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness" . . . .

You can't know what others think coming for the first time to this forum, maybe one or two who spoke about it, that is completely out of anyone's capacity unless they are heavily judgemental and believe they know other's motives, hearts, thoughts, etc.. Do you really stand by that statement that you know for a fact that is how the majority of people think coming to this forum? . . . .

Empty argument here. I can say the exact same thing entirely to the opposite if I were to lump everyone into my narrow bias as well. What is so controversial and offensive to you in this? Is this how you will treat your child if he or she comes to you asking questions about a flat earth, will you say, "Son / Daughter.... YOU ARE A FREAKING LUNATIC! and an embarrassment to the family...? =; "
.
Two words. D&C 131:27.

To use your own tactic.

Do you understand that scripture? I doubt it from your responses.

Pretty dismissive isn't it? No thanks to any more of my time with someone who "knows for a fact" what others intelligence and understanding are. Borderline abusive, all too familiar spirit in the LDS culture, esp. on this forum, albeit passive aggressive, it is abuse, telling someone what they do and don't understand, as if you were the all knowing demi-god with stuardship over their understanding. good luck with that.

Furthermore this same type of dismissive, "i know what you are, what you don't get, etc." is exactly the spirit the Church takes when one has a sincere question. This is deeper than (to use your own approach) you understand I fear... I doubt you will get it, because "i know for a fact" your type which is spoken of in many private facebook groups for a fact... see the problem with your approach yet? ;) - why would anyone want to join a church with such a brick wall manner of thinking?

I think we will find better company with the Lehi's, Samuel the Lamanites, and Christ where they were not so keen on the majority opinions and facts, "scientific tools and all".

I’ve told you what I meant by the use of lunatic. You choose to remain offended. And do you deny judging me, now? What an interesting paradox.

Speculating about the attitude of someone coming in to the forum and seeing a thread on the flat earth vs. globe that goes on and on, has nothing to do with unrighteous dominion. The passage you reference has to do with exercising Priesthood over someone else, not the expression of an opinion. This is a private discussion forum, but open to anybody . . . as long as they follow the rules. It’s seen the world-round (pun intended).

And expressing my opinion about such matters is not being judgemental, because it is simply a hypothetical proposition and doesn’t target any specific or known group. And I did say: “~some may come in and be excited by how open-minded the place is.” Why do you choose to ignore what I said about that?

Regarding teaching a child about such things, I would gently start teaching the child about the evidence for a global earth; starting out with simple reasons according to the age and capacity of the child. And I would regard it as a great error and a great, disservice, to teach any child that the earth is flat.

I actually eagerly await knowledge to be revealed by angels or any other intelligent means . . . where “nothing shall be withheld”, a la D&C 27-28, and elsewhere. I’m a geologist by training and work, so I have a lot of questions to ask and have answered.

You can discuss your flat earth ideas until the cows come home. Truth to tell, I don’t really care, beyond what I’ve already voiced. Why don’t you allow me to express my amazement for how such a thing can happen in this age of satellites and rockets/space stations, and such strong evidence for a global earth?

And a question for you: Do you think you've been dismissive/evasive regarding the many, many counter arguments to the flat earth theory that have been presented here? I don't recall seeing you rebut any of them.

[JohnnyL]

If this thread isn't deliberately designed to paint Brian's forum as one inhabited by lunatics and to be avoided, it has the same effect, anyway.

You know, I've heard if you say something over and over, it'll be accepted as truth. Maybe Brian is just one tiny baby step away from shutting the thread down, and you could rest easier at night...? @-)

[braingrunt]

1) Michaelson-Morley & Sagnac experiments MAY have relevance in proving geocentrism, but I can see no relevance in proving flat earth. You can still have a globe earth as demanded by sun moon and stars and still have a stationary earth, if you insist.
2)The gps system is some proof of relativity. Officially, GPS satellites have their atomic clocks slowed compared to earth ones, due to relativity, which has to be compensated for; and also GPS relies on the speed of light as its operating principle. Even though the satellites themselves move and your gps receiver MAY move in a car or plane, it still works. Maybe there's some hidden alternate facts about the GPS system, but nobody can deny it works; and right now the best explanations involve relativity, and if true, prove relativity.

[larsenb]

Michaelson Morely Experiment... results in NULL when measuring light waves through "Aether", showing the earth is NOT rotating around the sun... Science world of the time couldn't accept this result.

Einstein then came up with a way to abolish the "Aether" with a theory rather than accept the earth was not rotating around the sun.

Anyone have more insights into the findings of the Morley Experiment. It seems physics has been based on Einstein's theory more than actuality from their experiments. Morley's experiment proves the earth does not move but is stationery, what am I missing here?

I think you're garbling the actual meaning of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. What it did was to fail to prove that their was a drag on the speed of light due to a postulated aether, when the speed was measured in a direction of movement of the earth and then compared to the speed perpendicular to this movement.

Lorentz came up with his transformations in an attempt to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley results by mathematically positing that a body contracted in the direction of motion. Einstein also came up with his special theory of relativity that would accommodate this negative finding.

BTW, the earth does not "rotate" around the sun, it revolves around it. The earth rotates around its axis.

[NinjaForJesus]

I’ve told you what I meant by the use of lunatic. You choose to remain offended. And do you deny judging me, now? What an interesting paradox.

Speculating about the attitude of someone coming in to the forum and seeing a thread on the flat earth vs. globe that goes on and on, has nothing to do with unrighteous dominion. The passage you reference has to do with exercising Priesthood over someone else, not the expression of an opinion. This is a private discussion forum, but open to anybody . . . as long as they follow the rules. It’s seen the world-round (pun intended).

And expressing my opinion about such matters is not being judgemental, because it is simply a hypothetical proposition and doesn’t target any specific or known group. And I did say: “~some may come in and be excited by how open-minded the place is.” Why do you choose to ignore what I said about that?

Regarding teaching a child about such things, I would gently start teaching the child about the evidence for a global earth; starting out with simple reasons according to the age and capacity of the child. And I would regard it as a great error and a great, disservice, to teach any child that the earth is flat.

I actually eagerly await knowledge to be revealed by angels or any other intelligent means . . . where “nothing shall be withheld”, a la D&C 27-28, and elsewhere. I’m a geologist by training and work, so I have a lot of questions to ask and have answered.

You can discuss your flat earth ideas until the cows come home. Truth to tell, I don’t really care, beyond what I’ve already voiced. Why don’t you allow me to express my amazement for how such a thing can happen in this age of satellites and rockets/space stations, and such strong evidence for a global earth?

And a question for you: Do you think you've been dismissive/evasive regarding the many, many counter arguments to the flat earth theory that have been presented here? I don't recall seeing you rebut any of them.

I believe I understand what Kitkat is saying, and to be truthful your lunatic comment didn't feel right.

I have a question for you. What would it take for you to be wrong? What is it in your life that helps you realize something you have always believed is wrong after all? Have you had such an experience as of yet in your life, where you were wrong about something you knew was right at one point?

This thread has allowed me to be willing to be wrong. I have been lead to my knees to ask Jesus to not let me be so stubborn about what I think I know, so I can be open enough to be taught by Him.

What if all we have been taught concerning our earth and solar system is a deception after all? Will we believe at that point? I too can't wait for everything to be revealed. I believe we will be shocked in great measure as each truth is unfolded to our eyes. I also believe we will be ashamed for how we treated others who maybe after all had the truth all along and were simply sharing it as the Lord directed them to test all of us, maybe even to our shame.

I am not a flat earth believer myself, but I appreciate the information shared and bravery it takes. There are points that make sense for a flat earth and some that don't add up for me. I am however open to truth and being wrong. I have never considered some of these things and I must admit my mind feels opened to what I once would have laughed off as unbelievable. That is a change in me that in part came from observing this thread, pondering and asking God.

I am also curious to know where you stand on 9-11. Was it as NIST reported in your view? Did you do as Kitkat invited one to do, ask God about it? I sure did and I have been humbled in great measure by what I am being taught as I am able to receive it.

[larsenb]

. . . . I believe I understand what Kitkat is saying, and to be truthful your lunatic comment didn't feel right.

I have a question for you. What would it take for you to be wrong? What is it in your life that helps you realize something you have always believed is wrong after all? Have you had such an experience as of yet in your life, where you were wrong about something you knew was right at one point?

This thread has allowed me to be willing to be wrong. I have been lead to my knees to ask Jesus to not let me be so stubborn about what I think I know, so I can be open enough to be taught by Him.

What if all we have been taught concerning our earth and solar system is a deception after all? Will we believe at that point? I too can't wait for everything to be revealed. I believe we will be shocked in great measure as each truth is unfolded to our eyes. I also believe we will be ashamed for how we treated others who maybe after all had the truth all along and were simply sharing it as the Lord directed them to test all of us, maybe even to our shame.

I am not a flat earth believer myself, but I appreciate the information shared and bravery it takes. There are points that make sense for a flat earth and some that don't add up for me. I am however open to truth and being wrong. I have never considered some of these things and I must admit my mind feels opened to what I once would have laughed off as unbelievable. That is a change in me that in part came from observing this thread, pondering and asking God.

I am also curious to know where you stand on 9-11. Was it as NIST reported in your view? Did you do as Kitkat invited one to do, ask God about it? I sure did and I have been humbled in great measure by what I am being taught as I am able to receive it.

I could have rephrased the wording of my initial comment better, and did make an attempt to clarify it later.

A number of years ago when I worked for the U.S.G.S. in Menlo Park, CA, one of my office mates joined the Flat Earth Society and pinned his membership certificate on the wall. We all understood that it was a tongue-in-cheek joke. I never dreamed I would actually encounter somebody trying to mount an argument for a flat earth over many months, and maybe years, in a public forum.

Science has a very definite role to play in our reality. It is a consensus activity, open to being checked, refuted and verified by anyone who is willing to learn and use the process. I don’t see the consensus built up describing our earth and solar system as a deception. Too many people have had to verify the basic ideas, and a select few use them in such activities as astronomy, orbital science and rocketry, etc.; and they have been very successful in making the principles work.

Yes, I turn up wrong now and again, like the rest of us. But In terms of my ideas about reality, I’m very careful to be tentative . . . at least in some areas.

Flat earth is simply not a topic that has any credibility for me. Some of the arguments I’ve looked at are quite specious, or dead wrong, in my honest opinion. And it would never occur to me to pray about the truth of it. People generally only pray about issues that are of real concern to them.

If KitKat had a better understanding of the real and massive evidence for a global earth, it would be even braver for her to dispute the issue in a public forum. But what may appear to be bravery to one person, is foolhardiness to someone else. That’s just the way it is.

Since you brought it up, though, where do you stand on 9/11? Interesting you should bring it up. Why is that?

[Robin Hood]

I think the real issue here is that there are some people who are prepared to question things, even their own firmly held beliefs, and some who aren't. Those who aren't don't want others to either.

The truth is that none of us have seen the curvature of the earth with our own eyes, independent of anyone else. Some people accept the evidence presented to them regarding the physical characteristics of the earth, some are less inclined to swallow the popular narrative. And some are so distrustful of the popular narrative that they give ear to alternative theories that appear to better explain what they experience.
I have always felt it strange how the human race attempts to police itself. Step out of line and the other sheep will insist you get back with the flock. We don't even need a sheep dog!

A truly sad state of affairs.

[larsenb]

I think the real issue here is that there are some people who are prepared to question things, even their own firmly held beliefs, and some who aren't. Those who aren't don't want others to either.

The truth is that none of us have seen the curvature of the earth with our own eyes, independent of anyone else. Some people accept the evidence presented to them regarding the physical characteristics of the earth, some are less inclined to swallow the popular narrative. And some are so distrustful of the popular narrative that they give ear to alternative theories that appear to better explain what they experience.
I have always felt it strange how the human race attempts to police itself. Step out of line and the other sheep will insist you get back with the flock. We don't even need a sheep dog!

A truly sad state of affairs.

The problem with regarding the global earth as simply a "popular narrative" is that it ignores the very real and objective scientific evidence for a global earth . . . or it indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of same, IMHO .

I'm actually in awe, in a way, of anybody who would seriously propose and try to defend the flat earth proposition in a public forum. When I step back and think about the phenomenon, however, it's kind of endearing.

There are all kinds of people. We are all a mix. I'm reasonably sure KitKat could eclipse me by any number of good qualities she possesses.

I've got an older sister who is a gem in so many ways that I can't hope to equal her; but we go round and round about politics and on a particular scientific issue, regarding which, she is dead wrong B-) . Maybe I'm projecting my frustration with my sister onto KitKat :-\ .

[Robin Hood]

I think the real issue here is that there are some people who are prepared to question things, even their own firmly held beliefs, and some who aren't. Those who aren't don't want others to either.

The truth is that none of us have seen the curvature of the earth with our own eyes, independent of anyone else. Some people accept the evidence presented to them regarding the physical characteristics of the earth, some are less inclined to swallow the popular narrative. And some are so distrustful of the popular narrative that they give ear to alternative theories that appear to better explain what they experience.
I have always felt it strange how the human race attempts to police itself. Step out of line and the other sheep will insist you get back with the flock. We don't even need a sheep dog!

A truly sad state of affairs.

The problem with regarding the global earth as simply a "popular narrative" is that it ignores the very real and objective scientific evidence for a global earth . . . or it indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of same, IMHO .

I'm actually in awe, in a way, of anybody who would seriously propose and try to defend the flat earth proposition in a public forum. When I step back and think about the phenomenon, however, it's kind of endearing.

There are all kinds of people. We are all a mix. I'm reasonably sure KitKat could eclipse me by any number of good qualities she possesses.

I've got an older sister who is a gem in so many ways that I can't hope to equal her; but we go round and round about politics and on a particular scientific issue, regarding which, she is dead wrong B-) . Maybe I'm projecting my frustration with my sister onto KitKat :-\ .

The problem is that the "very real and objective scientific evidence for a global earth" turns out to be not nearly as real, and certainly not as objective, as most people assume.

For example, are you aware that the famous Bedford Levels experiment, conducted in the 1800's and which demonstrated a flat earth, was repeated last year, only this time using a laser. Over a distance of 6 miles no curvature could be detected. Why?
Did you know about this scientific evidence?
Of course not. It isn't the right kind of scientific evidence so goes unreported.

This is "very real and objective scientific evidence" that anyone can repeat. No need to rely upon other peoples interpretations.

The earth is clearly optically flat.
We live in the matrix.

[captainfearnot]

The problem is that the "very real and objective scientific evidence for a global earth" turns out to be not nearly as real, and certainly not as objective, as most people assume.

For example, are you aware that the famous Bedford Levels experiment, conducted in the 1800's and which demonstrated a flat earth, was repeated last year, only this time using a laser. Over a distance of 6 miles no curvature could be detected. Why?
Did you know about this scientific evidence?
Of course not. It isn't the right kind of scientific evidence so goes unreported.

This is "very real and objective scientific evidence" that anyone can repeat. No need to rely upon other peoples interpretations.

I hadn't heard of this, so I Googled it and discovered that it was first performed by Samuel Rowbotham in 1838. Rowbotham of course is a prominent Flat Earther. I also read that the experiment was repeated by Alfred Russell Wallace in 1870, only he accounted for atmospheric refraction and found curvature consistent with a spherical earth.

I saw the YouTube video where the Flat Earth UK group got together to recreate Rowbotham's experiment last year, and of course they didn't account for atmospheric refraction, so naturally they witnessed the same illusion Rowbotham did. Yes, it's scientific evidence. In this case it's evidence that you can make the earth appear flat if you ignore atmospheric refraction.

It's like a similar scientific experiment you can perform, where you look through a cardboard tube held up next to your hand, and it appears that there is a hole in your hand. If you ignore the effects of binocular vision in humans, then you have just found evidence of a hole in your hand.

[larsenb]

I think the real issue here is that there are some people who are prepared to question things, even their own firmly held beliefs, and some who aren't. Those who aren't don't want others to either.

The truth is that none of us have seen the curvature of the earth with our own eyes, independent of anyone else. Some people accept the evidence presented to them regarding the physical characteristics of the earth, some are less inclined to swallow the popular narrative. And some are so distrustful of the popular narrative that they give ear to alternative theories that appear to better explain what they experience.
I have always felt it strange how the human race attempts to police itself. Step out of line and the other sheep will insist you get back with the flock. We don't even need a sheep dog!

A truly sad state of affairs.

The problem with regarding the global earth as simply a "popular narrative" is that it ignores the very real and objective scientific evidence for a global earth . . . or it indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of same, IMHO .

I'm actually in awe, in a way, of anybody who would seriously propose and try to defend the flat earth proposition in a public forum. When I step back and think about the phenomenon, however, it's kind of endearing.

There are all kinds of people. We are all a mix. I'm reasonably sure KitKat could eclipse me by any number of good qualities she possesses.

I've got an older sister who is a gem in so many ways that I can't hope to equal her; but we go round and round about politics and on a particular scientific issue, regarding which, she is dead wrong B-) . Maybe I'm projecting my frustration with my sister onto KitKat :-\ .

The problem is that the "very real and objective scientific evidence for a global earth" turns out to be not nearly as real, and certainly not as objective, as most people assume.

For example, are you aware that the famous Bedford Levels experiment, conducted in the 1800's and which demonstrated a flat earth, was repeated last year, only this time using a laser. Over a distance of 6 miles no curvature could be detected. Why?
Did you know about this scientific evidence?
Of course not. It isn't the right kind of scientific evidence so goes unreported.

This is "very real and objective scientific evidence" that anyone can repeat. No need to rely upon other peoples interpretations.

The earth is clearly optically flat.
We live in the matrix.

Normally, when one encounters someone who claims this or that proved something, and you ask them to explain in their own words how and why it did so, they are at a loss. But maybe you're different RH. Care to explain in your own words why this experiment proved a flat earth?

The other tell-tale circumstance normally surrounding such experiments and the dissemination of their results, is that you won't find their experiment and findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Was this published in one . . . . maybe in Nature? Just for the interest anyone may have in this experiment, where can one find its write-up?

[Robin Hood]

I think the real issue here is that there are some people who are prepared to question things, even their own firmly held beliefs, and some who aren't. Those who aren't don't want others to either.

The truth is that none of us have seen the curvature of the earth with our own eyes, independent of anyone else. Some people accept the evidence presented to them regarding the physical characteristics of the earth, some are less inclined to swallow the popular narrative. And some are so distrustful of the popular narrative that they give ear to alternative theories that appear to better explain what they experience.
I have always felt it strange how the human race attempts to police itself. Step out of line and the other sheep will insist you get back with the flock. We don't even need a sheep dog!

A truly sad state of affairs.

The problem with regarding the global earth as simply a "popular narrative" is that it ignores the very real and objective scientific evidence for a global earth . . . or it indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of same, IMHO .

I'm actually in awe, in a way, of anybody who would seriously propose and try to defend the flat earth proposition in a public forum. When I step back and think about the phenomenon, however, it's kind of endearing.

There are all kinds of people. We are all a mix. I'm reasonably sure KitKat could eclipse me by any number of good qualities she possesses.

I've got an older sister who is a gem in so many ways that I can't hope to equal her; but we go round and round about politics and on a particular scientific issue, regarding which, she is dead wrong B-) . Maybe I'm projecting my frustration with my sister onto KitKat :-\ .

The problem is that the "very real and objective scientific evidence for a global earth" turns out to be not nearly as real, and certainly not as objective, as most people assume.

For example, are you aware that the famous Bedford Levels experiment, conducted in the 1800's and which demonstrated a flat earth, was repeated last year, only this time using a laser. Over a distance of 6 miles no curvature could be detected. Why?
Did you know about this scientific evidence?
Of course not. It isn't the right kind of scientific evidence so goes unreported.

This is "very real and objective scientific evidence" that anyone can repeat. No need to rely upon other peoples interpretations.

The earth is clearly optically flat.
We live in the matrix.

Normally, when one encounters someone who claims this or that proved something, and you ask them to explain in their own words how and why it did so, they are at a loss. But maybe you're different RH. Care to explain in your own words why this experiment proved a flat earth?

The other tell-tale circumstance normally surrounding such experiments and the dissemination of their results, is that you won't find their experiment and findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Was this published in one . . . . maybe in Nature? Just for the interest anyone may have in this experiment, where can one find its write-up?

I didn't say it proved a flat earth.
But you read into my words what you wanted to read, thus inadvertantly answering your later question regarding peer reviewed publications.

[larsenb]

. . . . . I didn't say it proved a flat earth.
But you read into my words what you wanted to read, thus inadvertantly answering your later question regarding peer reviewed publications.

But you said: “the famous Bedford Levels experiment, conducted in the 1800’s and which demonstrated a flat earth, was repeated last year . . . “

And went on to say: “This is very real and objective scientific evidence that anyone can repeat . . . “

For me and I would guess, almost anybody, this strongly implied you thought this proved the earth was flat, not just 6 miles of it.

Then you seem to shift this implied stance by saying: “the earth is clearly optically flat”.

OK, so you don’t really believe the entire earth is flat and DO believe that the earth forms a globe. Correct?? If so, why are you even getting into this discussion?? I don’t get it.

And “the real issue here is [NOT] that there are some people who are prepared to question things, even their firmly held beliefs, and some who aren’t”. I for one, am prepared to question the 'evidence' of a flat earth. And doing so says nothing about what else I, or anyone else, may question, even what may have been firmly held beliefs.

And your statement that “the earth is clearly optically flat”, is simply a matter of perspective.

Someone orbiting the earth would say “the earth is clearly optically round and globe-like". Or someone in a high flying Concord could hold up the long edge of an 8 ½ by 11 inch sheet of paper against the horizon and see the curvature of the horizon and honestly say that the earth was optically curved, at the very least.

And you lost me on your comment about the peer review issue. I take it you don't have a citation for this later experiment you mentioned, and know that it was not in a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal.

[JohnnyL]

Trying to understand what your saying.

Hmm... Along with

Helaman 12:13 Yea, and if he say unto the earth—Move—it is moved.
Because it was standing still, not spinning around, he needs to tell it to move.
14 Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;
15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.:,
So the earth is moving - that is the shock. The earth that stands still and is stationery under a spinning dome, begins to move, surely it was the EARTH that he moved, not the sun, as the EARTH is still on its foundations.

there's Helaman 12:11-12:
11 Yea, by the power of his voice doth the whole earth shake;
12 Yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center.
Center of the foundations. yes.

If we are accepting the first scripture in the manner put forth in this thread, should we accept the second one at face value, too?
Where do the rocks go all the way to the very center of the earth?

Please expound on what your sharing, as I'm a little slow understanding what the point is you are trying to bring across with this repeated scriptures on this thread.

If you're using Helaman 12:14-15, you should use Helaman 12:12. The foundations rock, even to the very center. What are the foundations? What is in the very center of the earth--something solid, or isn't it supposed to be a huge mass of liquid?

[Robin Hood]

. . . . . I didn't say it proved a flat earth.
But you read into my words what you wanted to read, thus inadvertantly answering your later question regarding peer reviewed publications.

But you said: “the famous Bedford Levels experiment, conducted in the 1800’s and which demonstrated a flat earth, was repeated last year . . . “

And went on to say: “This is very real and objective scientific evidence that anyone can repeat . . . “

For me and I would guess, almost anybody, this strongly implied you thought this proved the earth was flat, not just 6 miles of it.

Then you seem to shift this implied stance by saying: “the earth is clearly optically flat”.

OK, so you don’t really believe the entire earth is flat and DO believe that the earth forms a globe. Correct?? If so, why are you even getting into this discussion?? I don’t get it.

And “the real issue here is [NOT] that there are some people who are prepared to question things, even their firmly held beliefs, and some who aren’t”. I for one, am prepared to question the 'evidence' of a flat earth. And doing so says nothing about what else I, or anyone else, may question, even what may have been firmly held beliefs.

And your statement that “the earth is clearly optically flat”, is simply a matter of perspective.

Someone orbiting the earth would say “the earth is clearly optically round and globe-like". Or someone in a high flying Concord could hold up the long edge of an 8 ½ by 11 inch sheet of paper against the horizon and see the curvature of the horizon and honestly say that the earth was optically curved, at the very least.

And you lost me on your comment about the peer review issue. I take it you don't have a citation for this later experiment you mentioned, and know that it was not in a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal.

Then you clearly have not been following this thread, as I have repeatedly said that I am not a flat earther. Also I would have thought you would know that "demonstrate" does not mean "prove".
The Bedford Levels experiment, and many others of a similar vain, provide evidence but not proof. There is a big difference.

[JohnnyL]

I could understand atmospheric refraction with normal light waves, but now these experiments are done with lasers. What experiments show that atmospheric refraction will affect lasers in the same way they will affect normal light waves?

[captainfearnot]

I could understand atmospheric refraction with normal light waves, but now these experiments are done with lasers. What experiments show that atmospheric refraction will affect lasers in the same way they will affect normal light waves?

Just browsing through the literature on the subject, I came across a book titled Laser Beam Propagation in the Atmosphere by Hugo Weichel, published in 1990, which appears to be a concise summary of the various atmospheric effects on lasers.

As to your particular question, Weichel cites some early experiments establishing refraction of lasers in the atmosphere on page 66. One of these was conducted by A.L. Buck in 1967, and published in the journal Applied Optics, Volume 6, Issue 4.

Google "laser atmospheric refraction" and you'll find tons more recent research on the effect. Earth's atmosphere is something of a dynamic system and whenever we do something new involving satellites or laser guided missiles or whatever, someone is going to find out if there's a better, more accurate way to account for the atmospheric effects on those technologies.

But the fact that lasers behave like other light waves in most applications—they reflect off of mirrors, they refract through lenses, etc.—has been well established pretty much since they were invented in the 1960s.

[Finrock]

It's probably explained in this thread somewhere, but how do those who believe in a flat earth explain the fact that I can start from New York City and travel East and if I continue to travel East on the same latitude I will eventual end up back in New York City?

-Finrock

[captainfearnot]

Then you clearly have not been following this thread, as I have repeatedly said that I am not a flat earther. Also I would have thought you would know that "demonstrate" does not mean "prove".
The Bedford Levels experiment, and many others of a similar vain, provide evidence but not proof. There is a big difference.

Carl Sagan taught that we should always ask "How good is the evidence?" and not whether there is any evidence to support a claim. Because there is always evidence of some form or another. The mere presence of evidence doesn't establish anything. We need to evaluate the evidence and decide how good it is, whether it is sufficient to support the claim.

There is evidence of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. I don't happen to find that evidence sufficient to support the claim. Of course others will disagree.

So the question we are asking in this thread is, how good is the evidence for a spherical earth (I know, oblate ellipsoid), and how good is the evidence for any of the various flat earth models?

There is evidence for both. To me, the evidence for the current scientific consensus is overwhelming, both in quality and quantity, while the evidence for any of the various flat earth models is scanty and shoddy. It's like a fart in a hurricane. But of course others will disagree.

RH, you recently made the following claim:

The problem is that the "very real and objective scientific evidence for a global earth" turns out to be not nearly as real, and certainly not as objective, as most people assume.

As evidence in support of this claim, you cited the Bedford Level experiment, first performed by Rowbotham in 1838, and reenacted by the Flat Earth UK group last year.

I've looked at the evidence you provided, and I find it wholly insufficient to support your claim. The seemingly aberrant findings are easily accounted for. You suggested that the results were quashed due to their being unorthodox, but the only evidence you provide for this claim is that most people haven't heard of the experiment. While that's possible, another explanation for its obscurity is that it's shoddy pseudoscience that doesn't go anywhere near refuting the current scientific consensus. After investigating the issue myself, I find the latter to be far more likely. Of course others will disagree.

If you have further evidence of your claim that the the evidence for a global earth is not nearly as real or as objective as most people assume, I would be happy to consider it. But that strikes me as an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.