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

[Ungläubige]

The earth as globe (or oblate spheroid) model, has reasonable explanations for movement of the sun in the sky, hemispheric seasonal changes, moon phases, lunar and solar eclipses, time zones, coriolis effect, satellites in geo-synchronous orbits, etc, etc, etc. you can predict and explain all of these things using math and science

Why can't Flat Earthers come to a consensus on a workable model of the earth and heavenly bodies (sun,moon, planets, stars, etc) which explains the same phenomena described above? (And specifically explain this - how have we been able to put satellites into the sky and keep them there - hovering above a flat earth?)

[cayenne]

I think this subject is a loaded one, lots of dis info and lies. I think our programming from birth on many things leads people to immediately laugh and mock certain things. I understand it is easy to say it is obvious the earth is round. However, there are a number of experiments one can do themselves which seem to negate that. Maybe the surface is flat, with a round dome, with satellites moving in low earth orbit around the flat surface like the sun and moon. All i know is the few experiments i have done with my own eyes tell me NASA's curvature math is wrong. The same way my eyes told me on 911 the free fall implosion of the towers was a demolition event. The worst of the worst is to believe a Lie so deeply that a person does not listen to their own senses...now that is being enslaved to the highest degree. Joseph Smith liked to prove contraries. Sometimes both sides have some truth, and pure truth is somewhere in the middle. What is interesting is there are over 60 scriptural versus that discuss the shape of the earth type scenario, and the fact that there are some pretty intelligent people out there that are questioning NASA and what we have always been told. I hope when myself and others post links on here, that people that think it is a crazy waste of time to bother with those links will actually read and watch them. If the flat earth theory is so crazy, what do you have to lose to read and watch the links, you may be surprised and realize there are many inconsistencies with the mainstream story line...but hey, whats new right?

[Robin Hood]

The earth as globe (or oblate spheroid) model, has reasonable explanations for movement of the sun in the sky, hemispheric seasonal changes, moon phases, lunar and solar eclipses, time zones, coriolis effect, satellites in geo-synchronous orbits, etc, etc, etc. you can predict and explain all of these things using math and science

Why can't Flat Earthers come to a consensus on a workable model of the earth and heavenly bodies (sun,moon, planets, stars, etc) which explains the same phenomena described above? (And specifically explain this - how have we been able to put satellites into the sky and keep them there - hovering above a flat earth?)

Actually, the flat-earther's do have explanations for these.
There are a number of presentations on Youtube.

It is also worth pointing out that there isn't consensus amongst the globe-earther's either.

[cayenne]

Maybe we could do a point to point discussion about these things if we can keep it civil and peaceful.

If I may, what about starting off talking about the horizon, and things disappearing over it. Is it perception? Or the actual object disappearing over the horizon? When I see a ship disappear over the horizon, and then binoculars/telescope bring it perfectly flat back into view like it never left, how can this be explained other than a flat plane? How can this be explained with a curvature of a round earth? This is observable to our own eyes and senses. Any and all explanations please give, and maybe this can actually be a fun debate unlike most debates on this forum

Any takers on my question?

[Silver]

Well, I didn't think this discussion would last this long, but since it has:

Did the astronauts really go to the moon?

When astronauts go up in space, to the moon for example, is it true they circle Earth and observe that it is a globe?

If Earth is not a globe, is it possible the astronauts know this and are a part of a grand conspiracy to keep the public uninformed?

If there is this grand conspiracy to deceive the unwashed masses, who profits from it?

How would it hurt the public to know that the Earth is flat?

If the public learns that the Earth is flat, what would be the consequences? (For example, funding would be cut from all the various space programs and thousands of people would be prosecuted for perpetrating a fraud on society.)

Is it really possible that thousands of people are in on a secret of this scale and significance without revealing it to their parents, spouses, siblings, children, clergymen, best friends and bartenders?

Disclaimer: I'm not a science guy. I probably got some technical terms messed up. If you are kind enough to respond to me, please explain things just like you would to a 3rd grader.

[cayenne]

I had asked about the curvature above in my post. Can anyone add alternative explanations to it?

Again, if a boat goes out of view in the ocean, is it perception? or actual curvature? If it is curvature, how can binoculars/telescope bring it back into view perfectly flat like it never left? What explanations can we come up with here? This is testable by the "little guy"……we can use our own eyes and senses here, and do not have to so called "rely" on those who have a monopoly on many things like NASA.

[Robin Hood]

Maybe we could do a point to point discussion about these things if we can keep it civil and peaceful.

If I may, what about starting off talking about the horizon, and things disappearing over it. Is it perception? Or the actual object disappearing over the horizon? When I see a ship disappear over the horizon, and then binoculars/telescope bring it perfectly flat back into view like it never left, how can this be explained other than a flat plane? How can this be explained with a curvature of a round earth? This is observable to our own eyes and senses. Any and all explanations please give, and maybe this can actually be a fun debate unlike most debates on this forum

This was my point earlier.
The flat-earthers are clearly on to something here if the conventional explanation of the disappearing ship holds "true". But my point is that maybe globe-earthers have simply assumed that disappearing ships are the result of the earth's curvature, and that assumption is wrong.

Ships clearly do not dip below the horizon due to the curvature of the earth when they disappear from view. This doesn't mean the earth isn't spherical, but it does mean that one of the proof's of it's shape isn't a proof after all.

[cayenne]

Good thoughts Robin Hood. When I first heard about the flat earth theory I chucked. The only reason I even looked into it is since the scriptures mention many items involving the earth and its design. When I came across the horizon issue I went and tested it myself, and I was amazed. What I was seeing according to NASA math should not have been there. Now, many people can laugh this off, but when my own eyes are seeing something that should not be there who am I going to believe? My own eyes or the laughing hyena people mocking? I will take my eyes any day! I would like to hear alternative explanations from those who think the flat earth theory is a laughable caveman joke (like I once did) on the horizon issue.

(it is like when Obama mocked the flat earth people more than once publicly, if you know psychology, it does not take a genius to figure out why a man in power would mock this. This is typical of people in power to mock something that has truth to it to dissuade the masses from looking into it. (same with power people mocking 911 truthers, vaccinations, holocaust deniers, herbs, or other long lists of things that contain at least some truth "they" want kept hidden.)

[cyclOps]

If the earth is flat, then get a telescope with 200x or more magnification and you should be able to see the Statue of Liberty from London. But you actually won't be able to because the earth isn't flat.

[AI2.0]

Flat or hollow or globe? Share your proof.
Lots of videos to watch, this one puts it into some real perspective for a flat earth.

Was God was being serious and literal, even child like simple? Water above the firmament, and below... Space isn't space, it is water.

It makes sense.

Kitkat, are you homeschooling your children? If you are, you need to make sure they get some normal educational material and not just the far out religious stuff. I taught at a private LDS school and taught many homeschooled children, so I know that sometimes homeschooling parents can go way overboard in one direction of what they want to teach and refuse to offer a well rounded education. To me, these parents do a disservice, just as much as the negatives found in public education because they give limited information which does not prepare their children for understanding the world around them and it's meant to indoctrinate, which fosters closed mindedness.

The earth is a globe and as per your request, I will share my own particular experience as to why I know this. I suspect that you might appreciate how I know this ;) .

I saw a UFO many years ago on my way down to St. George late at night. I saw the UFO slowly descend in a straight line, it's lights blinking. It stopped in mid air, then, the lights blinked and I saw it shoot away from me, and as it did, I saw the curvature of the earth--this was a split second. It was an incredible experience. At the time I realized that no aircraft that I knew of could move at that speed or in such a way. It was like I'd seen it on an episode of star trek--like the aircraft had suddenly gone into warp drive (if you're familiar with Star Trek). So, while I've never been to space, I can attest that I have first hand knowledge that the earth is round.

[braingrunt]

The laser tests are certainly interesting, not sure the rebuttal. My math pretty closely agrees with their assertion that a resting water surface should drop about 8in/mile, meaning that a laser at water level could not possibly hit a detector a mile away at water level, without either bending or going through the water. Assuming the water truly is level.
There are too many ways for me to question the result though.
1) water in a container is not perfectly level, look at it in a glass and you will see it climb the walls slightly. Perhaps the shore will have some similar (but macro) effect like that, making them calibrate the laser lower than they think they are. This is my actual tentative hypothesis. They are dealing with exceedingly fine angles which could be harmed by small effects. (ps, this climb the shore hypothesis might easily invalidate the test I proposed unless you take great care to avoid shores, and even then I don't know.)
2) lasers do not travel in a straight line through the atmosphere. They tried to claim some confidence in how the refraction should go, but I couldn't share their conviction. (this is why, among other reasons, space telescopes have an advantage over earth ones. However, in the same vein, they can improve land telescopes by measing and correcting for refractions using lasers etc)

I watched the first 20+ minutes of a certain Eric Doubray video on evidences of a flat earth, and I have to say, those 20 minutes were an absolute trainwreck of error. I can't fully review it at present, but what he'd do, is fire off a series of points which all share the same underlying error, or even buildup of errors. For example, some of his points mixed flat gravity with round earth; and of course if you mix those you're going to come up with nonsense. If you want to think about round earth on it's merits you're going to have to also think about round gravity or else you're just being dumb, I'm sorry. I found those points EXCEEDINGLY dumb. I don't know how a supposedly smart person could not be made to see this.
He also made some errors with momentum, such as, if the surface of the earth is moving eastward, why don't objects thrown into the air fall to the west. DEEEERRRRP! Oh please... every object already has momentum in the direction of motion, and that won't just go away when you throw it up into the air. Oh gosh, I don't even know what to say. I'm nearly speechless about it and all I can do it blabber for a moment. But if he's really a smart person I can propose some experiments within his moving car, or if you must, in the back of an open pickup truck. Go ahead, aim something upward, get moving, and let loose. Watch what happens. You're going to see in pretty short order the point. Even in the back of an open pickup, where wind might interfere, you'll see results which will convince your brain without the need of stopwatches and measuring tapes, that things thrown up from a moving object don't suddenly stop motion relative to the moving object.
He also proposed some thought experiments which seemed to imply the earth was hurtling and spinning through someone else's atmosphere, which would cause winds etc. This was really bad thinking. If you are going to test the merits of round earth you're going to have to accept the idea that the earth holds its atmosphere and they just coast along together. There's no friction in space to stop this or make it crazy. The large scale resting point is determined by the large scale orbital forces and of course, even the atmosphere would tend toward those resting points. So all his points about airspeed and blahblah were just, once again, a trainwreck.
If I were to rewatch, I'm sure I could point out more, but I've wasted enough time on that already. The laser experiments were worlds better but still unconvincing.

We've got far too much which indicates a round earth to easily dismiss and they need to come up with plausible explanations for them or else I'll just look for other explanations to their points instead of taking them as proofs of flat earth.

[Robin Hood]

If the earth is flat, then get a telescope with 200x or more magnification and you should be able to see the Statue of Liberty from London. But you actually won't be able to because the earth isn't flat.

There is an explanation for that too.
However, your example isn't a good one given that there would be a lot of things in the way between London and the Statue of Liberty. Hills, trees, buildings etc. London is not on the extreme west coast of England.

Now, you may think that is a lame answer (it is) but it is the same standard as the objections globe-earthers frequently throw at those who believe otherwise.

I have always been more interested in observable evidence than evidence based on "truths" that we "know".
Are you aware, for example, that a number of experiments to prove a spherical earth have failed? Does this mean the earth is flat? No it doesn't. But flat-earthers will point to them just as you have used the London/Statue of Liberty "evidence" to prove their point.
It really is not that simple.

The basis for the flat-earth position is observation. The earth appears to be flat. Water finds a level and doesn't bend. The sun, moon and stars appear to move through the sky. The horizon rises to the line of vision, even when one is travelling at 35,000ft. East and west flight times are the same. The list goes on.
This is where flat-earthers start.
So arguments about things that can't be observed, like astronauts, gravity or the coriolis affect simply won't register.
This isn't meant as a criticism. It's just that both sides can talk past each other unless great care is exercised.

[cayenne]

Flat or hollow or globe? Share your proof.
Lots of videos to watch, this one puts it into some real perspective for a flat earth.

Was God was being serious and literal, even child like simple? Water above the firmament, and below... Space isn't space, it is water.

It makes sense.

Kitkat, are you homeschooling your children? If you are, you need to make sure they get some normal educational material and not just the far out religious stuff. I taught at a private LDS school and taught many homeschooled children, so I know that sometimes homeschooling parents can go way overboard in one direction of what they want to teach and refuse to offer a well rounded education. To me, these parents do a disservice, just as much as the negatives found in public education because they give limited information which does not prepare their children for understanding the world around them and it's meant to indoctrinate, which fosters closed mindedness.

The earth is a globe and as per your request, I will share my own particular experience as to why I know this. I suspect that you might appreciate how I know this ;) .

I saw a UFO many years ago on my way down to St. George late at night. I saw the UFO slowly descend in a straight line, it's lights blinking. It stopped in mid air, then, the lights blinked and I saw it shoot away from me, and as it did, I saw the curvature of the earth--this was a split second. It was an incredible experience. At the time I realized that no aircraft that I knew of could move at that speed or in such a way. It was like I'd seen it on an episode of star trek--like the aircraft had suddenly gone into warp drive (if you're familiar with Star Trek). So, while I've never been to space, I can attest that I have first hand knowledge that the earth is round.

Kitkat, if you homeschool, awesome. God has given the parents to be sovereign over your children as their judge and educator until they are their own agents unto the Lord. Public schools teach a mix of lies and truth. Home education from righteous parents is the best way to avoid another generation being deceived in many things.

AI2.0, that is a cool story. maybe you saw the curve, maybe you saw the curve of the sphere dome. However it is your experience and only you can truly know what you saw. Thanks for sharing.

[jbalm]

If keeping the flat Earth secret is a big conspiracy, wouldn't all those airline pilots who fly the polar routes have to be in on it?

[cayenne]

If the earth is flat, then get a telescope with 200x or more magnification and you should be able to see the Statue of Liberty from London. But you actually won't be able to because the earth isn't flat.

There is an explanation for that too.
However, your example isn't a good one given that there would be a lot of things in the way between London and the Statue of Liberty. Hills, trees, buildings etc. London is not on the extreme west coast of England.

Now, you may think that is a lame answer (it is) but it is the same standard as the objections globe-earthers frequently throw at those who believe otherwise.

I have always been more interested in observable evidence than evidence based on "truths" that we "know".
Are you aware, for example, that a number of experiments to prove a spherical earth have failed? Does this mean the earth is flat? No it doesn't. But flat-earthers will point to them just as you have used the London/Statue of Liberty "evidence" to prove their point.
It really is not that simple.

The basis for the flat-earth position is observation. The earth appears to be flat. Water finds a level and doesn't bend. The sun, moon and stars appear to move through the sky. The horizon rises to the line of vision, even when one is travelling at 35,000ft. East and west flight times are the same. The list goes on.
This is where flat-earthers start.
So arguments about things that can't be observed, like astronauts, gravity or the coriolis affect simply won't register.
This isn't meant as a criticism. It's just that both sides can talk past each other unless great care is taken.

very good explanation Robin Hood

Braingrunt, I agree with some of what your are saying about dubay. I find a lot of his stuff is excellent and is observably true, but yes some of the things you say he is off on i agree with. There have been other flat earthers whom have called eric out on some of those points you named. This is why I will watch an entire 2 hour video, and not just the first part. I think sometimes it is easy to watch something for a few minutes when we already assume the info is whack, and then we actually find something wrong, and justify not watching the rest of the video.

here is a cool video I think if you watch the whole thing you may like it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi2NbIf_7p4&t=4327s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[braingrunt]

I had asked about the curvature above in my post. Can anyone add alternative explanations to it?

Again, if a boat goes out of view in the ocean, is it perception? or actual curvature? If it is curvature, how can binoculars/telescope bring it back into view perfectly flat like it never left? What explanations can we come up with here? This is testable by the "little guy"……we can use our own eyes and senses here, and do not have to so called "rely" on those who have a monopoly on many things like NASA.

I would ask, how far out to sea was this vessel? And what was your elevation above the water, if any. Still, I might try this experiment myself if I can get the right chance because it does seem that a vessel several miles out, if you can see it, should have lost some of it's bottom over the horizon. But you'd need to be careful about HOW much and taking that into your accounting.

[cayenne]

If keeping the flat Earth secret is a big conspiracy, wouldn't all those airline pilots who fly the polar routes have to be in on it?

I have a family member who flies a 777 pacific. I asked him why they fly over anchorage when going from routes like LAX to Hong Kong. He doesn't know…that is just what the routes do. Why do routes from lets say rio de janiero to cape town africa fly way up north first? If you look at the UN official map (flat earth) and you look at flying from Lax to Hong Kong the routing becomes obvious why they fly what seems so far out of route on on the round earth model.It is a straight line on the flat map from LA to Hong kong….hmmmm

Oh, I have not mentioned to my family member about the flat earth, he would think I am nuts….yet he cannot explain why he flies so far out of route over the pacific based on are "google earth" round map.

[braingrunt]

I understand optimal flight paths are not determined by straight lines alone, but by jetstreams, and if needed, stopping points.

[Ungläubige]

Flat earthers tell me this, why do we see the sun rise in the east and set in the west? If it's moving above the surface of a flat earth, why isn't it always in view - and why doesn't the observed size shrink and grow due to perspective?

[Ungläubige]

Maybe the surface is flat, with a round dome, with satellites moving in low earth orbit around the flat surface like the sun and moon.

What keeps the satellites flying? They can't carry enough fuel to stay suspended over a flat earth.

It's easily explained if they are orbiting a globe.

[cyclOps]

If the earth is flat, then get a telescope with 200x or more magnification and you should be able to see the Statue of Liberty from London. But you actually won't be able to because the earth isn't flat.

There is an explanation for that too.
However, your example isn't a good one given that there would be a lot of things in the way between London and the Statue of Liberty. Hills, trees, buildings etc. London is not on the extreme west coast of England.

Now, you may think that is a lame answer (it is) but it is the same standard as the objections globe-earthers frequently throw at those who believe otherwise.

I have always been more interested in observable evidence than evidence based on "truths" that we "know".
Are you aware, for example, that a number of experiments to prove a spherical earth have failed? Does this mean the earth is flat? No it doesn't. But flat-earthers will point to them just as you have used the London/Statue of Liberty "evidence" to prove their point.
It really is not that simple.

The basis for the flat-earth position is observation. The earth appears to be flat. Water finds a level and doesn't bend. The sun, moon and stars appear to move through the sky. The horizon rises to the line of vision, even when one is travelling at 35,000ft. East and west flight times are the same. The list goes on.
This is where flat-earthers start.
So arguments about things that can't be observed, like astronauts, gravity or the coriolis affect simply won't register.
This isn't meant as a criticism. It's just that both sides can talk past each other unless great care is exercised.

Ok, not from London, but from the western coast of the U.K.

[cyclOps]

Explain how earth's magnetic field works on a flat earth. Also explain how stars rotate in opposite directions depending on if you're observing from the north or south hemisphere.

[cayenne]

Maybe the surface is flat, with a round dome, with satellites moving in low earth orbit around the flat surface like the sun and moon.

What keeps the satellites flying? They can't carry enough fuel to stay suspended over a flat earth.

It's easily explained if they are orbiting a globe.

I don't really buy into the flat earth no satellite thing. I tend to believe satellites can orbit in low earth orbit. Makes me wonder why i have heard obama twice and NASA have admitted to never being out of low earth orbit. Seriously, why would they admit to that? Does that mean mars and Jupiter are in low earth orbit?

When the first space missions took place, there is a video released by the BBC that I think was supposed to be classified at one time? or they got it by mistake. i dont remember. It showed the astronauts were in space (probably low earth orbit) but the view of earth was manipulated. They were using cameras in a dark part of the space ship about 15 ft or so from a round window that showed earth. this made it look like earth was a round sphere from a long distance. This video is very telling that indeed they were faking stuff. (Plus, where are the stars)

Here is a link:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mCHG6uJH5L8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Especially the end when they turn the lights on.

[cayenne]

This link is unbelievable in telling there lies. Please watch it. Remember we were supposed to have gone decades ago into deep space, through the van Allen belts, the moon, etc.....listen and tell what you think?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X6PS_bgfBRU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seriously, these people in the know are.........hmmmm

[cayenne]

These guys can't keep their lies straight!