sooda
Veteran Member
The ancient Jews didn't take the stories literally either.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Prove or Disprove Flat Earth Theology
- Thread starter Samantha Rinne
- Start date
The ancient Jews didn't take the stories literally either.
sooda
Veteran Member
@ exchemist
This may interest you..
Kamal (navigation) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_(navigation)
A kamal is a celestial navigation device that determines latitude.
The invention of the kamal allowed for the earliest known latitude sailing, and was thus the earliest step towards the use of quantitative methods in navigation. It originated with Arab navigators of the late 9th century, and was employed in the Indian Ocean from the 10th century.
It was adopted by Indian navigators soon after, and then adopted by Chinese navigators …
This may interest you..
Kamal (navigation) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_(navigation)
A kamal is a celestial navigation device that determines latitude.
The invention of the kamal allowed for the earliest known latitude sailing, and was thus the earliest step towards the use of quantitative methods in navigation. It originated with Arab navigators of the late 9th century, and was employed in the Indian Ocean from the 10th century.
It was adopted by Indian navigators soon after, and then adopted by Chinese navigators …
Latitude is pretty easy to determine. The *hard* thing is longitude.
sooda
Veteran Member
I know.. Notice how early they were using the Kamal.
exchemist
Veteran Member
As Sir Cloudesley Shovell [yes, really!] discovered to his cost: Scilly naval disaster of 1707 - Wikipedia
Or maybe it was only a contributing factor.....
sooda
Veteran Member
Oh Wow.. That's some story ... so many lives lost and miscalculating longitude.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes. Supposedly, this was what in part led to the establishment of a prize for the first person to devise a clock that would run accurately at sea, in spite of the motion of the vessel. (Obviously the normal pendulum escapement was out of the question.) With an accurate clock, the time at which the sun reached its zenith could be seen to change, according to how far west or east of Greenwich one was.
The prize was finally won by a fellow called Harrison.
exchemist
Veteran Member
By the way, when I was at university, my college rang the bell in the tower 101 times at five minutes past 9 every evening. This was supposedly to commemorate the number of the original scholars at the founding of the college, at what would have been 9 pm on the Oxford meridian! A group of us chemists were sceptical that a place a mere 50miles west of London would be 5 minutes behind Greenwich, so one evening after dinner we went to somebody's room and did the geometry on it. And yes, it is true.
Audie
Veteran Member
I think a common sailor who was familiar with the waters
tried to warn the admiral was flogged, and no doubt
then drowned for his temerity.
Audie
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Prove or Disprove Flat Earth Theology
By theology is meant the Religion. The truthful Religion does not interfere with the realm of Science which is related to the physical and material realm. I believe that Earth is round. There is nothing in the truthful Religion that is against it. The realm of the truthful Religion is ethical, moral and spiritual irrespective of the form of Earth. Right, please?
Regards
By theology is meant the Religion. The truthful Religion does not interfere with the realm of Science which is related to the physical and material realm. I believe that Earth is round. There is nothing in the truthful Religion that is against it. The realm of the truthful Religion is ethical, moral and spiritual irrespective of the form of Earth. Right, please?
Regards
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Theology is not about what you believe though.
The very first class of theology I had with a professor, the guy came in and was like "Back when I was in the 60s or so, everyone was like 'I believe God is a woman' or 'Yeah, but I believe God is an eagle.' That's NOT what theology is." Theology is not about what crackpot ideas you can come up with. It's about how belief can be proven. How assumptions can be defended. The study of God, not the belief.
I found this today, so I thought I'd use it to demonstrate a point.
This octopus wrongly assumes that what he knows, another octopus glaring sternly at him, must be the case, when actually it's a mirror. How then do we understand that our way of seeing things is correct?
I can make a case, while not 100% sure, that there is a reasonable grounds for the Earth not being round, and the sun orbiting the Earth and not the other way around.
1. Having been on theme park rides, I know what G-force feels like. And I know at least as much as the average layman about such things as friction, momentum, wind resistance, and the like. We are told that there is not only a constant orbit (which is faster than a rocket at 66000+ mph) but also a constant rotation (which is faster than a tornado at 1000+ mph). Yet we feel neither tornado-force winds nor a high gravitational pull. In fact, both of these things should be constant but both wind and gravity seem barely present.
2. The Earth and moon are tidally locked, despite the statement that the Earth should be rotating at over 1000 mph and also orbiting, yet the moon only moves at about 10 mph, so rather than being "perfectly synchronized" it would be reasonable to expect to see the dark side of the moon for a certain portion of every 30 days. At the very least, this means that rotating is not a prerequisite for objects that orbit. But there is something else revealed by this. You see, in order to constantly constantly see the same side, one of two things must be true: (1) exactly as the Earth rotates and the moon heads around the Earth so it would be past it, it turns exactly to show us its front at all times. (2) Or the moon (and possibly the sun also) are circling overhead and the rise/set is actually looking at a curved path through a curved dome, at a 45-60° angle (divide a circle into 1/8 and you'll see the same arcing motion as a sun set from any way you look at it)?
3. While we're on the subject of sun and moon, what is more likely? That the sun and moon are widely different in side, but only appear exactly the same size because of carefully maintained lunar and solar distance, which is somehow preserved despite 66000 mph x 24 hours x 365 days = roughly 578,160,000 miles of orbit? (Yeah, I know how to do Fermi method) Or that they are the same size, at a near orbit from each other, that the two are slightly off-sync and occasionally eclipse, but we are seeing their bottom, and the sun casting shadow on the moon is what causes its phases? Oh wait, no that's actually how it works. But it makes not sense for a huge distant object to obscure a much smaller one only partially, while it actually makes alot of sense for two nearby objects to affect each other. Thus far, nothing in this understanding required any rotation at all (and in fact, it would be a hindrance since powerful winds would constantly mess up daily life).
4. In order have an actual round Earth, water would constantly be spilling around the sides of everything. This is easy to prove. Get that globe your dad or grandpa gave you and put it in the shower or sink. No part of it will retain water except by getting soaked, most will roll off the sides. This, despite spinning, is what should constantly be happening. Moreover, in order to hold shape, water must literally curve. All engineers should know of this water curvature phenomenon and be adjusting for it. They aren't.
5. What I often get is, "Well if you believe in flat Earth, you must not believe in space flight or other planets." Well, I actually don't believe in other planets, but that's not only a strawman but also a non sequitor. There is nothing inherently preventing the moon, sun, or satellites from orbiting the Earth. Being a fixed immobile object does not prevent this. In fact, if you tried landing a plane on the side of a hill instead of a flat runway, you'd immediately see why the idea of a significantly curved planet would present issues for flight, space travel, and especially re-entry from space. So would trying to catch up to a constantly rotating and moving Earth. In fact, the Earth moves much faster than a space ship, and does so constantly, making it virtually impossible to land once you left for space. So not only is space travel actually not debunked by flat Earth, (to some flat Earth types this is so, but I don't find this a helpful mentality) but it is actually far simpler to imagine a rocket taking off from a flat fixed surface and landing on one.
5b. But, you ask, I've watched rockets, why do they seem to exit the Earth at an angle? Well, for one, as I mentioned there is an actual dome around the Earth. This is why the Earth appears round, but other times appears flat. And it's because of the same issues of trying to climb a mountain quickly or dive or ascend rapidly in water. Descent creates pressure, while rapid ascent causes the bends. Also, as a dome, escaping the atmosphere would be far easier at a low angle than it would to move straight up.
That's a few reasons why I'm sure. So what about you? You don't get to do the negative ad thing ("the other candidate is stupid"), tell me why you're not a an octopus confusing the mirror for a rival.
The very first class of theology I had with a professor, the guy came in and was like "Back when I was in the 60s or so, everyone was like 'I believe God is a woman' or 'Yeah, but I believe God is an eagle.' That's NOT what theology is." Theology is not about what crackpot ideas you can come up with. It's about how belief can be proven. How assumptions can be defended. The study of God, not the belief.
I found this today, so I thought I'd use it to demonstrate a point.
This octopus wrongly assumes that what he knows, another octopus glaring sternly at him, must be the case, when actually it's a mirror. How then do we understand that our way of seeing things is correct?
I can make a case, while not 100% sure, that there is a reasonable grounds for the Earth not being round, and the sun orbiting the Earth and not the other way around.
1. Having been on theme park rides, I know what G-force feels like. And I know at least as much as the average layman about such things as friction, momentum, wind resistance, and the like. We are told that there is not only a constant orbit (which is faster than a rocket at 66000+ mph) but also a constant rotation (which is faster than a tornado at 1000+ mph). Yet we feel neither tornado-force winds nor a high gravitational pull. In fact, both of these things should be constant but both wind and gravity seem barely present.
2. The Earth and moon are tidally locked, despite the statement that the Earth should be rotating at over 1000 mph and also orbiting, yet the moon only moves at about 10 mph, so rather than being "perfectly synchronized" it would be reasonable to expect to see the dark side of the moon for a certain portion of every 30 days. At the very least, this means that rotating is not a prerequisite for objects that orbit. But there is something else revealed by this. You see, in order to constantly constantly see the same side, one of two things must be true: (1) exactly as the Earth rotates and the moon heads around the Earth so it would be past it, it turns exactly to show us its front at all times. (2) Or the moon (and possibly the sun also) are circling overhead and the rise/set is actually looking at a curved path through a curved dome, at a 45-60° angle (divide a circle into 1/8 and you'll see the same arcing motion as a sun set from any way you look at it)?
3. While we're on the subject of sun and moon, what is more likely? That the sun and moon are widely different in side, but only appear exactly the same size because of carefully maintained lunar and solar distance, which is somehow preserved despite 66000 mph x 24 hours x 365 days = roughly 578,160,000 miles of orbit? (Yeah, I know how to do Fermi method) Or that they are the same size, at a near orbit from each other, that the two are slightly off-sync and occasionally eclipse, but we are seeing their bottom, and the sun casting shadow on the moon is what causes its phases? Oh wait, no that's actually how it works. But it makes not sense for a huge distant object to obscure a much smaller one only partially, while it actually makes alot of sense for two nearby objects to affect each other. Thus far, nothing in this understanding required any rotation at all (and in fact, it would be a hindrance since powerful winds would constantly mess up daily life).
4. In order have an actual round Earth, water would constantly be spilling around the sides of everything. This is easy to prove. Get that globe your dad or grandpa gave you and put it in the shower or sink. No part of it will retain water except by getting soaked, most will roll off the sides. This, despite spinning, is what should constantly be happening. Moreover, in order to hold shape, water must literally curve. All engineers should know of this water curvature phenomenon and be adjusting for it. They aren't.
5. What I often get is, "Well if you believe in flat Earth, you must not believe in space flight or other planets." Well, I actually don't believe in other planets, but that's not only a strawman but also a non sequitor. There is nothing inherently preventing the moon, sun, or satellites from orbiting the Earth. Being a fixed immobile object does not prevent this. In fact, if you tried landing a plane on the side of a hill instead of a flat runway, you'd immediately see why the idea of a significantly curved planet would present issues for flight, space travel, and especially re-entry from space. So would trying to catch up to a constantly rotating and moving Earth. In fact, the Earth moves much faster than a space ship, and does so constantly, making it virtually impossible to land once you left for space. So not only is space travel actually not debunked by flat Earth, (to some flat Earth types this is so, but I don't find this a helpful mentality) but it is actually far simpler to imagine a rocket taking off from a flat fixed surface and landing on one.
5b. But, you ask, I've watched rockets, why do they seem to exit the Earth at an angle? Well, for one, as I mentioned there is an actual dome around the Earth. This is why the Earth appears round, but other times appears flat. And it's because of the same issues of trying to climb a mountain quickly or dive or ascend rapidly in water. Descent creates pressure, while rapid ascent causes the bends. Also, as a dome, escaping the atmosphere would be far easier at a low angle than it would to move straight up.
That's a few reasons why I'm sure. So what about you? You don't get to do the negative ad thing ("the other candidate is stupid"), tell me why you're not a an octopus confusing the mirror for a rival.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You're messing with us, right?
1. It isn't speed that you feel, but acceleration. And even though the speed of rotation of the Earth is high, the acceleration is low.
2. yes, that is what it means to be tidally locked. An asymmetrical body orbiting a larger one will, over time, start to keep its heavier face toward the larger body. We understand the dynamics of this and we know of other bodies in our solar system that are tidally locked in the same way as the moon is for the Earth.
3. Why does it not make sense for a larger, more distant object to obscure a smaller closer object partially? In fact, the farther away the large object is, the smaller it appears (angular size) and the more likely it is that the amount of obscuring is only partial.
4. Now do this without the gravity of the Earth pulling the water down past the sphere. So, if we were is a weightless situation, the water would NOT fall past the sphere. In the case of the Earth, gravity pulls everything towards the center (where the mass is), so the water naturally flows towards the center (i.e, down).
5. I would suggest learning some basic physics. What is relevant is the difference in the speeds of the spacecraft and the Earth, not the absolute speeds. As an example, if you are in a car moving at 60 mph and drop a ball, it drops 'straight down' in the car, not 'straight down' as seen from the Earth. In actuality, that dropped ball is moving forward at the same speed as the car, but also falling. So it LOOKS like it is going straight down in the car.
The same thing happens with the spacecraft or the wind. They are moving fairly slowly compared to the Earth even though both are moving fast from an outside perspective.
5b. Well, they want to get into orbit, so they purposefully angle after a while to reach that orbit. Rockets manage to get to outer space in just a few minutes and so need to adjust their pitch to get into the correct orbit fairly soon.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Prove or Disprove Flat Earth Theology
Isn't "flat earth" fictional?
The natural word "flat" in its origin/root never meant what it is thought these days.
First they fixed its meaning (to make it like a term) and then they started bullying others.
Right, please?
Regards
_____________
"The myth of the flat Earth is a modern misconception that Earth was believed to be flat rather than spherical by scholars and the educated during the Middle Ages in Europe.*"
*Main, Douglas (28 January 2016). "Even in the Middle Ages, People Didn't Think the Earth was Flat". Newsweek. Retrieved 26 April 2019.
Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia
"The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict.*"
* James Hannam. "Science Versus Christianity?".
Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia
Isn't "flat earth" fictional?
The natural word "flat" in its origin/root never meant what it is thought these days.
First they fixed its meaning (to make it like a term) and then they started bullying others.
Right, please?
Regards
_____________
"The myth of the flat Earth is a modern misconception that Earth was believed to be flat rather than spherical by scholars and the educated during the Middle Ages in Europe.*"
*Main, Douglas (28 January 2016). "Even in the Middle Ages, People Didn't Think the Earth was Flat". Newsweek. Retrieved 26 April 2019.
Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia
"The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict.*"
* James Hannam. "Science Versus Christianity?".
Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
You followed the Qur’an more so than you do with the Bible. Unfortunately, the Qur’an is just as backwards, making similar mistakes as the Bible do.
“Quran 20:53 multiple translations” said:
What I had highlighted in bold, referring the Earth being “spread” like a “carpet” or a “bed”, is indication that the author viewed the Earth to be flat.
Btw, the rest of the verse, about the roads, about the rain and about plants are also wrong. But this topic is about the flat Earth, so the other parts of the verse are irrelevant.
Try this experiment. Take a spherical globe of the earth (according to round earthers) and a piece of string. Place one end on your point of departure and the other end on you destination. Pull the string tight so that it follows the shortest distance. Notice the path. Then post the results.
Try an experiment. Take a globe of the round earth. Look at it from the top (from the north pole). Notice that it looks similar to the picture you present of the flat earth.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member