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

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply

What do the scriptures teach us about the earth?

The Earth is a globe.
66
67%
The Earth is Flat like a terrarium (a dome).
14
14%
The Earth is a globe and hollow.
15
15%
The Earth is Flat and hollow.
3
3%
 
Total votes: 98
User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

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

Post by Robin Hood »

braingrunt wrote:SWEET. Did we perhaps actually convince some people? There are only 7 flat earth votes now when there used to be 10, I swear!

I'm not saying this to be mean spirited, it's just nice to imagine that people helped some others to see errors, maybe even me.

There were seven before, not ten.
You are mistaken.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

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

Post by braingrunt »

Robin Hood wrote:
braingrunt wrote:SWEET. Did we perhaps actually convince some people? There are only 7 flat earth votes now when there used to be 10, I swear!

I'm not saying this to be mean spirited, it's just nice to imagine that people helped some others to see errors, maybe even me.
There were seven before, not ten.
You are mistaken.
oh

Ungläubige
captain of 50
Posts: 95

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

Post by Ungläubige »

Kitkat wrote:
"This earth on which we dwell is an individual planet occupying a unique place in space. But it is also part of our solar system, an orderly system with eight other planets, asteroids, comets, and other celestial bodies that orbit the sun. " - James E. Faust

Kitkat
captain of 100
Posts: 594

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

Post by Kitkat »

shadow wrote:...
Praying the flooding to come my husband spoke of years back, doesn't accidentally come your way... :D
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43140638&nid=148" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

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

Post by shadow »

No flooding for me or for the majority of people here in cache valley.
Thanks for asking.

User avatar
sandman45
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1562

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

Post by sandman45 »

braingrunt wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
braingrunt wrote:SWEET. Did we perhaps actually convince some people? There are only 7 flat earth votes now when there used to be 10, I swear!

I'm not saying this to be mean spirited, it's just nice to imagine that people helped some others to see errors, maybe even me.
There were seven before, not ten.
You are mistaken.
oh
its back to 8 now!!


JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

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

Post by JohnnyL »

sandman45 wrote:
In support of about 2:20:

2 Ne. 23: 10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Hel. 14: 20 But behold, as I said unto you concerning another sign, a sign of his death, behold, in that day that he shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead.

D&C 88: 8, 45, 87
8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
• • •
45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.
• • •
87 For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig-tree.

D&C 133: 49 And so great shall be the glory of his presence that the sun shall hide his face in shame, and the moon shall withhold its light, and the stars shall be hurled from their places.

cayenne
captain of 100
Posts: 758

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

Post by cayenne »

sandman45 wrote:
Great video, short and to the point.

Kitkat
captain of 100
Posts: 594

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

Post by Kitkat »

For what it is worth. Please feel free to help me know if this test didn't do anything or if it does add to the testing of a circular disc (flat earth) model.

I took a flight from SLC to Oregon. Two flights to be exact. I didn't see any curvature whatsoever once we reached above the clouds (I never have in any flight), and the pilot had no clue what I was asking about curvature of the earth in his training, however the flight attendants were fascinated with my experiment and spoke with me each time afterwards. I even had a gentlemen from Australia debate with me about the tides and the two models, which was a fun conversation.

I took three digital levels (apps on iphone, ipad, and nexus google phone). I put one in the window while we were on the ground and made it so it didn't move. This app measured down to decimals any variance in the level from the ground of the plane. This flight was almost empty, so I had an entire row to myself, as did almost everyone else on the flight, allowing me to secure this device the entire flight without it moving.

I was able to get the level to exactly level on the ground before the plane moved (zero degrees). While the plane taxied I could see the degrees of the level go up and down slightly as the plane braked and then taxied to then take off.

Take off was a solid average of almost exactly 14 degrees give or take a few decimals once we were in prime lift angle I guess (it was fun to confirm my level was pretty spot on with this chart afterwards http://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2009/0 ... f-all.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) , and then after reaching the altitude for the entire rest of the trip, even with turbulence, which was the most I've ever experienced in a flight due to the winter storm that hit the area maybe, the plane stayed at a constant 4 degrees give or take a few decimals, even when we hit turbulence the variance wasn't but a few decimal places above or below 4 degrees for a few minutes during turbulence.

What should have I expected with a heliocentric or flat earth model in this mini experiment? I observed that the plane never varied whatsoever from those four degrees during the entire flight but randomly by a few decimal points, we are talking maybe two to three, 5 at the most when we hit turbulance mostly varying where the nose of the plane would be pointing slightly more upward, and rarely maybe once or twice the level would go the other way suggesting the nose was pointing downward.

Was I wrong to assume that I should have observed corrections of even a half a degree to compensate for any curvature of the earth? Why did any almost all variance show the nose of the plane pointing upward rather than compensating downward.

Why four degrees the entire flight, was it like a jet ski in the water having to maintain that angle and speed to stay afloat in the air the entire trip?

I also put my ipad on the seat next to me to have a level that was opposite the one in the windows, to observe the tilt of the planes wings which was fun to see. The level of the wings were constant after getting to cruising altitude as well, and only varied greatly at take off and landing and turing the plane around to the flight path.

Thoughts?

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

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

Post by braingrunt »

I don't know how to say anything about the constant up angle except that even with curvature, it makes possible sense to me and also to you. I know that for stable flight, (fight dynamics that don't need a quick thinking computer to keep it from tumbling etc), you want the plane nose-heavy, and the tail wings actually push the back downward rather than producing lift like the main wings. Or at least that's what my dad told me one time, who worked in aerospace for many years.

Being a programmer, I have considered writing apps for phones, and so have some knowledge of their sensors. Their gyros do correct using accelerometer data, and compass data if available. Plane gyros do indeed correct their level using other sensors as well, which flat earth videos tend to miss. Gyros are considered reliable in the short term and unreliable in the long, while compass and accelerometer are considered unreliable in the short term and reliable in the long.
(They wiggle in the short term but their average tends to point the right way if you average over a relatively long time. In order to fool an accelerometer for VERY long, you'd have to be doing something extraordinary indeed)
If you mix gyros and other sensors in the right way, you can get the best of both worlds, eg, artificial horizons which can put up with you tumbling the plane if you must, while also handling the curve of the earth or other macro considerations (such as mechanical drift of gyros which has nothing to do with the curve of the earth)

But, all that aside, you said something which clues you in that the digital levels largely rely on accelerometers and NOT gyros, which was "the levels changed according to braking etc while taxiing". Accelerometers are more like plumb-lines and just point along force lines. Gyros tend to resist force lines.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

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

Post by shadow »

Why would you expect a variance or a correction? Are you familiar with gravity?

Since you brought up planes-
Whats the shortest distance from Sydney Australia to Johannesburg on a globe vs. on a flat earth? How do planes make that flight? Why is it that the shortest distance is actually on a globe and not on a flat earth? In fact, on a flat earth there are too many miles separating the two for a non-stop flight to even be possible. And yet non-stop flights exist :-$

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

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

Post by Robin Hood »

Kitkat wrote:For what it is worth. Please feel free to help me know if this test didn't do anything or if it does add to the testing of a circular disc (flat earth) model.

I took a flight from SLC to Oregon. Two flights to be exact. I didn't see any curvature whatsoever once we reached above the clouds (I never have in any flight), and the pilot had no clue what I was asking about curvature of the earth in his training, however the flight attendants were fascinated with my experiment and spoke with me each time afterwards. I even had a gentlemen from Australia debate with me about the tides and the two models, which was a fun conversation.

I took three digital levels (apps on iphone, ipad, and nexus google phone). I put one in the window while we were on the ground and made it so it didn't move. This app measured down to decimals any variance in the level from the ground of the plane. This flight was almost empty, so I had an entire row to myself, as did almost everyone else on the flight, allowing me to secure this device the entire flight without it moving.

I was able to get the level to exactly level on the ground before the plane moved (zero degrees). While the plane taxied I could see the degrees of the level go up and down slightly as the plane braked and then taxied to then take off.

Take off was a solid average of almost exactly 14 degrees give or take a few decimals once we were in prime lift angle I guess (it was fun to confirm my level was pretty spot on with this chart afterwards http://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2009/0 ... f-all.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) , and then after reaching the altitude for the entire rest of the trip, even with turbulence, which was the most I've ever experienced in a flight due to the winter storm that hit the area maybe, the plane stayed at a constant 4 degrees give or take a few decimals, even when we hit turbulence the variance wasn't but a few decimal places above or below 4 degrees for a few minutes during turbulence.

What should have I expected with a heliocentric or flat earth model in this mini experiment? I observed that the plane never varied whatsoever from those four degrees during the entire flight but randomly by a few decimal points, we are talking maybe two to three, 5 at the most when we hit turbulance mostly varying where the nose of the plane would be pointing slightly more upward, and rarely maybe once or twice the level would go the other way suggesting the nose was pointing downward.

Was I wrong to assume that I should have observed corrections of even a half a degree to compensate for any curvature of the earth? Why did any almost all variance show the nose of the plane pointing upward rather than compensating downward.

Why four degrees the entire flight, was it like a jet ski in the water having to maintain that angle and speed to stay afloat in the air the entire trip?

I also put my ipad on the seat next to me to have a level that was opposite the one in the windows, to observe the tilt of the planes wings which was fun to see. The level of the wings were constant after getting to cruising altitude as well, and only varied greatly at take off and landing and turing the plane around to the flight path.

Thoughts?

I applaud you Kitkat.
I am more impressed by actual personal experimental evidence than by the sheeple who spout the party line based on the assumptions of others. We need more people prepared to test the perceived wisdom.

While it is my view that both the flat-earth and globe-earth models are too simplistic (we live in a universe of contradictions and surprises), there is no doubt that it is safe to say that, based on observable criteria, the earth is optically flat.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

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

Post by braingrunt »

It was cool to experiment, but here's the thing: if you don't know the characteristics of your instruments, or if you don't know what data to consider significant, or if you misrepresent a physical model... then, your experiment is just a cool game which can't teach you anything true. One or all of these feature in almost all flat earth arguments.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

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

Post by larsenb »

Kitkat wrote: . . . . Was I wrong to assume that I should have observed corrections of even a half a degree to compensate for any curvature of the earth? Why did any almost all variance show the nose of the plane pointing upward rather than compensating downward.

Why four degrees the entire flight, was it like a jet ski in the water having to maintain that angle and speed to stay afloat in the air the entire trip?
Yes you were wrong to assume you would pick up any variation in your level due to the earth's curvature. Why? Assuming the plane is flying relatively level, gravity is a vector force directed at 90 degrees from your level to the center of the earth. You can fly all around the globe earth, and this remains the same.

It the plane is climbing, the level bubble will move forward. If the plane is going down or diving, the bubble will move aft. But nice to see your inclination to experiment.

At the very least, save up your pennies to buy airplane tickets on flights that essentially circumnavigate the globe. This is also experimental . . . for you. And if you end up at the same place coming from the opposite direction, without ever having encountered an edge, you really might want to consider this as prima facie evidence for a globe-like earth.

Kitkat
captain of 100
Posts: 594

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

Post by Kitkat »

Robin Hood wrote:
Kitkat wrote:For what it is worth. Please feel free to help me know if this test didn't do anything or if it does add to the testing of a circular disc (flat earth) model.

I took a flight from SLC to Oregon. Two flights to be exact. I didn't see any curvature whatsoever once we reached above the clouds (I never have in any flight), and the pilot had no clue what I was asking about curvature of the earth in his training, however the flight attendants were fascinated with my experiment and spoke with me each time afterwards. I even had a gentlemen from Australia debate with me about the tides and the two models, which was a fun conversation.

I took three digital levels (apps on iphone, ipad, and nexus google phone). I put one in the window while we were on the ground and made it so it didn't move. This app measured down to decimals any variance in the level from the ground of the plane. This flight was almost empty, so I had an entire row to myself, as did almost everyone else on the flight, allowing me to secure this device the entire flight without it moving.

I was able to get the level to exactly level on the ground before the plane moved (zero degrees). While the plane taxied I could see the degrees of the level go up and down slightly as the plane braked and then taxied to then take off.

Take off was a solid average of almost exactly 14 degrees give or take a few decimals once we were in prime lift angle I guess (it was fun to confirm my level was pretty spot on with this chart afterwards http://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2009/0 ... f-all.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) , and then after reaching the altitude for the entire rest of the trip, even with turbulence, which was the most I've ever experienced in a flight due to the winter storm that hit the area maybe, the plane stayed at a constant 4 degrees give or take a few decimals, even when we hit turbulence the variance wasn't but a few decimal places above or below 4 degrees for a few minutes during turbulence.

What should have I expected with a heliocentric or flat earth model in this mini experiment? I observed that the plane never varied whatsoever from those four degrees during the entire flight but randomly by a few decimal points, we are talking maybe two to three, 5 at the most when we hit turbulance mostly varying where the nose of the plane would be pointing slightly more upward, and rarely maybe once or twice the level would go the other way suggesting the nose was pointing downward.

Was I wrong to assume that I should have observed corrections of even a half a degree to compensate for any curvature of the earth? Why did any almost all variance show the nose of the plane pointing upward rather than compensating downward.

Why four degrees the entire flight, was it like a jet ski in the water having to maintain that angle and speed to stay afloat in the air the entire trip?

I also put my ipad on the seat next to me to have a level that was opposite the one in the windows, to observe the tilt of the planes wings which was fun to see. The level of the wings were constant after getting to cruising altitude as well, and only varied greatly at take off and landing and turing the plane around to the flight path.

Thoughts?

I applaud you Kitkat.
I am more impressed by actual personal experimental evidence than by the sheeple who spout the party line based on the assumptions of others. We need more people prepared to test the perceived wisdom.

While it is my view that both the flat-earth and globe-earth models are too simplistic (we live in a universe of contradictions and surprises), there is no doubt that it is safe to say that, based on observable criteria, the earth is optically flat.
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).
Last edited by Kitkat on February 14th, 2017, 7:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

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

Post by braingrunt »

I asked google how far you can see in a plane, and an article came up saying that you can see about 230mi at 35,000ft in ideal conditions. Doing the math, that means that arc of the planet you can see is only 3.3 degrees, perhaps not enough to discern anything. And it's far less at ground level. I'm willing to admit that my previous comments about being on a mountaintop and thinking I can detect curvature, is probably just the circularity of my sight radius or pure imagination. At about 10000ft the viewable distance is supposedly about 122 mi or only 1.7 degrees.

Even at 100000ft distance is only (supposedly) 488 miles or 7.7degrees. I don't know at what point my perception would become unmistakable.
Last edited by braingrunt on February 15th, 2017, 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

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

Post by larsenb »

Robin Hood wrote: . . . While it is my view that both the flat-earth and globe-earth models are too simplistic (we live in a universe of contradictions and surprises), there is no doubt that it is safe to say that, based on observable criteria, the earth is optically flat.
Another experiment for KitKat, provided they start flying something like the Concorde again. Doing a search for 'curvature of earth visibility', I ran across a poster who said he had placed the edge of an 8x11 sheet of paper against the visible curvature of the earth at about 65,000 to 70,000 ft high, and measured against this straight line, the curvature of the earth started to show up.

Something that could be easily done from a manned satellite. So no; based on observable criteria, the earth shows that it is not optically flat. Of course, for the last experiment, you're either going to have to hitch a ride on a manned satellite, or believe someone who has performed the same experiment from a manned satellite. Or you could as well believe any photographs taken of the edge of the earth from said satellite, which do show the curvature.

But I realize, putting your faith in such things may be difficult for you and, I guess, Robin Hood.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10351
Contact:

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

Post by marc »

D&C 130:6 The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth;

7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.

9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.
If the angels and God reside on a globe, why would God create anything other than a globe for us to inhabit until it becomes a celestialized globe? And here's another question. Are all planets globes? Or are they just all figments of NASA's imagination? If not, explain Saturn and its rings.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

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

Post by rewcox »

It's flat as far as I can see... :)

Seriously, how do you account for day & night? Seasons? Constellations? Tides?

Kitkat
captain of 100
Posts: 594

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

Post by Kitkat »

shadow wrote:Why would you expect a variance or a correction? Are you familiar with gravity?

Since you brought up planes-
Whats the shortest distance from Sydney Australia to Johannesburg on a globe vs. on a flat earth? How do planes make that flight? Why is it that the shortest distance is actually on a globe and not on a flat earth? In fact, on a flat earth there are too many miles separating the two for a non-stop flight to even be possible. And yet non-stop flights exist :-$
Did you actually give this some though? Am I familiar with gravity? I'll pretend you are not being sarcastic or rude. I actually asked God about gravity and He introduced us to the electric universe - which there is an amazing thread about on this very forum (warning, it isn't found in the manual, or in GC talks).

Kitkat
captain of 100
Posts: 594

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

Post by Kitkat »

braingrunt wrote:It was cool to experiment, but here's the thing: if you don't know the characteristics of your instruments, or if you don't know what data to consider significant, or if you misrepresent a physical model... then, your experiment is just a cool game which can't teach you anything true. One or all of these feature in almost all flat earth arguments.
Did Lehi know the characteristics of the Liahona? Did he have to know of the gyros working in them? I think it was more simplistic faith and trust in God. It was a cool experiment, fun to sit there and observe with the very best tech we had access to.

I felt it pleased the Lord who introduced us to the topic, that we were willing to consider it further in spite of the incredible amount of people thinking it is stupid to even consider and in the face of "accepted" theories (which is beginning to be a pattern as we know the Lord's voice over mankind's voices in that when he answers us, we usually have to undo some book learning).

Kitkat
captain of 100
Posts: 594

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

Post by Kitkat »

braingrunt wrote:I asked google how far you can see in a plane, and an article came up saying that you can see about 230mi at 35,000ft in ideal conditions[\i]. Doing the math, that means that arc of the planet you can see is only 3.3 degrees, perhaps not enough to discern anything. And it's far less at ground level. I'm willing to admit that my previous comments about being on a mountaintop and thinking I can detect curvature, is probably just the circularity of my sight radius or pure imagination. At about 10000ft the viewable distance is supposedly about 122 mi or only 1.7 degrees.

Even at 100000ft distance is only (supposedly) 488 miles or 7.7degrees. I don't know at what point my perception would become unmistakable.

Interesting. It was suggested to us to not trust the machines we used in our simple but fun experiment, may we also caution the suggester in using the machine google to determine how far you can see... it may negate the validity of your statistics. :p

Kitkat
captain of 100
Posts: 594

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

Post by Kitkat »

larsenb wrote:
Robin Hood wrote: . . . While it is my view that both the flat-earth and globe-earth models are too simplistic (we live in a universe of contradictions and surprises), there is no doubt that it is safe to say that, based on observable criteria, the earth is optically flat.
Another experiment for KitKat, provided they start flying something like the Concorde again. Doing a search for 'curvature of earth visibility', I ran across a poster who said he had placed the edge of an 8x11 sheet of paper against the visible curvature of the earth at about 65,000 to 70,000 ft high, and measured against this straight line, the curvature of the earth started to show up.

Something that could be easily done from a manned satellite. So no; based on observable criteria, the earth shows that it is not optically flat. Of course, for the last experiment, you're either going to have to hitch a ride on a manned satellite, or believe someone who has performed the same experiment from a manned satellite. Or you could as well believe any photographs taken of the edge of the earth from said satellite, which do show the curvature.

But I realize, putting your faith in such things may be difficult for you and, I guess, Robin Hood.
We are OK with curves on the earth. The curves actually would make a beautiful flat earth domed model. We probably need some curvature in order to have a dome model with a flat-earth. Flat is probably the wrong word for it, it would be more like footstool on pillars, with water above and below the firmament to quote scripture.

Kitkat
captain of 100
Posts: 594

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

Post by Kitkat »

rewcox wrote:It's flat as far as I can see... :)

Seriously, how do you account for day & night? Seasons? Constellations? Tides?
braingrunt recommends a google search. Lots of well done proposals, including by some scientists on your questions. Why not study it out and present your evidences?

Post Reply