The Bible Was Right. The Earth Is Flat.

[Shad]

No, as I have stated multiple times in this thread, I have not seen any edge, nor do I believe that there is an edge to my idea of a flat earth.

As I have also stated, no round-Earthers have either admitted that they have seen the spherical Earth for themselves, directly, with their own eyes.

I stated that I lean towards the belief that the earth is flat. Round-Earthers also believe that the earth is spherical. There is no double-standard.

If I "hold unrealistic standards", then so do round-Earthers, in my eyes. Neither of the two groups have personal knowledge.

Except there have been people that have traveled around the world. There also stories of such as follows which shows the Earth is spherical. Two friends were stationed in Japan having left America from Seattle. They both work on AWAC in the Air Force. This specific AWAX has been deployed to Iraq from Japan. An army friend worked in Iraq but left America from New York with a stop in Germany. He worked on the computer and communication systems which linked the AWAC to the regional command in Iraq. The difference is we have a justified belief, which has been repeatedly justified for centuries. Namely James Cook and other facts people provided to you. You do not hold a justified belief, you hold a belief despite evidence against it.

 

[buddhist]

My statement still stands. A world-wide conspiracy between governments (without slip-ups) would be required in order for the flat Earth to even be a possibility. Every space program and every airline worldwide would have to be in on it (since anyone who had ever sent a craft into space would find out about the Earth's flatness and every airline would discover discrepancies between flight times predicted for a flat Earth and that of a round Earth). I don't have that kind of faith in humanity's ability to deceive.

Who knows? There seems to be some circumstantial evidence on both sides.

 

[buddhist]

Except there have been people that have traveled around the world. There also stories of such as follows which shows the Earth is spherical. Two friends were stationed in Japan having left America from Seattle. They both work on AWAC in the Air Force. This specific AWAX has been deployed to Iraq from Japan. An army friend worked in Iraq but left America from New York with a stop in Germany. He worked on the computer and communication systems which linked the AWAC to the regional command in Iraq. The difference is we have a justified belief, which has been repeatedly justified for centuries. Namely James Cook and other facts people provided to you. You do not hold a justified belief, you hold a belief despite evidence against it.

All that is circumstantial evidence.

I lean towards my belief because I realize that both sides possess some circumstantial evidence, but I find one side more compelling. On the other hand, you believe that my belief is "not justified" because it appears that you dismiss the circumstantial evidence provided from the side of the flat-earthers, and only accept the circumstantial evidence from the round-earthers.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

In circumnavigating the globe ... or traveling any distance accross its surface ... sailors and aviators must account for compass declination; that is, the difference from the true north pole to magnetic north, adjusting their compasses a few degrees hither or thither to maintain their accuracy. From point zero, the most a compass will experience in this adjustment is 40 degrees. Were the earth flat, during circumnavigations, the compass declination would near 180 degrees; and this declination would be clearly marked on declination charts. But they're not. That's because we're not traveling in a circle around a magnetic north pole.

You know, all of this is pointless. I used to debate flat earthers on YouTube. They are among the most obstinate, stubborn people I have ever encountered in defending their delusion.

You can take them up and show them the curvature of the earth, and they will refute with "light refraction". You can show them how the laws of motion as we know them are the only possible mechanism for the movement of stellar bodies and they will claim unknown mechanisms. You can remind them of gravity, and they will claim gravity doesn't exist (we're on a disc on a steady rate of acceleration upwards to who knows where and the g forces we experience from this infinite acceleration gives the impression of gravity). We can query them on GPS, magnetic declination, etc. and this is ignored. You can talk to them about space exploration, and they will call it fake. You can point out flight times and flight directions in traveling from Sao Palo to Melbourne, and they don't even bothe to refute or take in that evidence because its evidence that they can't refute, so they ignore it, shove their arrogant noses in the air and ask "Have you done so yourself? Have you seen it yourself?" You show them videos of civilians traversing the Antarctic, and they give no rebuttal but declare again that the earth is flat.

To believe that the earth is flat, one must dismiss pretty much the entirety of the knowledge of the physical sciences. If one does not respect evidence, then no evidence can be presented that will change their minds.

This level of chosen stupidity exceeds my level of tolerance.

I'm going to go teach my gerbil basic addition. I'll have more luck with that project than educating certain human beings on why a spherical earth is an indisputable fact of reality.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Your airline pilot has no name. With no name, there is no avenue to identify the individual who supposedly made these assertions. Without the ability to identify the individual, then we have no way of knowing who wrote the "letter". Without that dentity, we have no way to validate that he has a BA in Anthropology, or that he was ever in Viet Nam, or that he was ever an airline pilot. This is "argument from authority" ... and it fails more than it fails because we can't stipulate that this guy is even an "authority" on anything. "Nothing ever leaned". How ridiculously hilarious. Completely dismissing all rules of perspective ... Nevermind ... Unfalsifiable evidence is not evidence.

 

[buddhist]

I'll have more luck with that project than educating certain human beings on why a spherical earth is an indisputable fact of reality.

Why is it so important to you that others must believe in your chosen viewpoint, even though you likely don't know it for yourself?

 

[RedDragon94]

Scripture is replete with a multitude of clear references to the Earth being not a globe suspended in space, but a flat surface. Just a few of these descriptions would be:

1.) In Matthew 4:8-9 Idiot Satan taking Jesus up on a very high mountain to show Him "All the kingdoms of the Earth." A globe Earth would not permit such a perspective, but a flat Earth would.

2.) Genesis 1:6-8 has the original Hebrew Text word for "dome," which is the shape of the firmament above the flat Earth.

3.) 1 Samuel 2:8 and Job 9:6 speak of the "pillars" of the Earth, which would not be within a solid sphere.

These three points should be enough for this little introductory discussion, just to get your sensitive and heretofore gullible hearts started onto the path of Biblical Cosmology. There is much more Scripture to know about regarding the Earth, none of which speak of a spheroid Earth.

Some science to be given for those here who like the idea of science helping them figure things out in life would be:

1.) Gyroscopic navigation successfully used for decades would not be possible upon a spinning globe Earth. The reference gyros would continuously precess and move as the globe Earth spins. Planes, ships, and missles would crash.

2.) A globe Earth would not continuously spin around the Polaris star, as the Earth hurtles in three axis motion through space in the Solar System, Galaxy, and Galaxy Cluster, all moving at millions of miles per hour.

3.) There exist no actual photos of the Earth taken from space vehicles. All NASA Earth images from them are admitted by them to be "composite images" artificially produced. As well, those images never show sky blue atmosphere around the Earth as we see it from the Earth.

4.) A thousand mph surface speed at the spinning equator of a globe Earth would have long ago forced all of the crustally mobile continents to move to the equator. But, this has not happened.

5.) There is no physical mechanism to cause the Earth's atmosphere to spin at the same rate as the surface of a spheroid Earth. The wind at the equator of a globe Earth should be supersonic, but it is not.

It will serve no purpose for yourself or any purpose within this discussion for you to become emotionally upset, attitudinally snarky, or full of ad hominem when you try to post your thoughts. Try to honor The Lord and His Bible with manly and efficacious statements. Thanks for your cooperation.

Watch this video, it might change your mind.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why is it so important to you that others must believe in your chosen viewpoint, even though you likely don't know it for yourself?

You're right, honestly. It doesn't matter if you, as an individual, are right or wrong about the spherical nature of the Earth.

Good luck with your current level of "correctness". I will still hold my opinion that your level of "correctness" is ABSOLUTE ZERO on this particular topic - I cannot conscionably do otherwise.

 

[allfoak]

There is no need to debate when we know the truth.
The earth is both flat and round.
The earth has a body and a mind just like us.
We live both on the body of the earth and in the mind of the earth.
This is why the earth can be seen as flat and round.
And why there is even a debate at all is because both are true.

Humans can be seen in the same way.
We have a body and we have a magnetic field that surrounds our body.
So we could be seen as both flat and round.

We and the earth are not flat like two dimensional flat.
We have a surface area that we could look at as flat and we have a magnetic field that surrounds us that can be seen as round in relation to our body.
The earth is the same way.

The difficulty with understanding this is that most are unable to see the magnetic fields of people or the earth.

While humans can't create and control magnetism, à la Magneto of X-Men, there's a chance we may have the ability to sense Earth's magnetic field.
http://www.livescience.com/14694-humans-sixth-sense-magnetic-fields.html

 

[buddhist]

Watch this video, it might change your mind.

Fish-eye lenses (e.g. 1:33)? Computer Generated Imagery? Who knows these days.

Unless I see the Earth for myself, I can't say that I know its shape either way. I suspect and believe it is likely flat, but I don't know.

 

[RedDragon94]

Computer Generated Imagery?

This is computer generated.

 

[Skwim]

This is computer generated.

How do you know?

 

[allfoak]

 

[fantome profane]

Fish-eye lenses (e.g. 1:33)? Computer Generated Imagery? Who knows these days.

So you really do believe it is a massive conspiracy. Why? Why would anyone fake this? What is their motive?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My statement still stands. A world-wide conspiracy between governments (without slip-ups) would be required in order for the flat Earth to even be a possibility.

Can you imagine those meetings between the space programs of Soviet Russia and America? LMFAO!! That alone should be more than sufficient to dispel the flat Earth idea, bury it in somewhere deeper than the Mariana trench (because that is not even deep enough), and never have it see the light of day again.

 

[Parsimony]

Who knows? There seems to be some circumstantial evidence on both sides.

Videos of the Earth from space are either real or they are hoaxed by a global conspiracy. It is significantly more likely that they are real given the enormous financial resources and international cooperation on many levels of society required in order for such a conspiracy to exist (and do so without leaving behind telling evidence).

- The world's space agencies would have to waste many millions of dollars a year launching "dummy" rockets that never go into orbit just to keep up the illusion that they are doing things in space. Any organizations associated with space agencies, such as the world's militaries, would have to be in on it as well. Let's not forget private space agencies.
- The airlines would have to waste millions of dollars a year flying around on courses that make a journey seem longer that it is supposed to just to match a round-Earth geography.
- Oceanliners would have to do the same thing.
- Physicists would have to falsify results such as measuring that the strength of gravity varies at different altitudes and depths within the Earth (which would not occur on a flat Earth), as well as the ability to detect the Sun as it passed underneath the Earth due to its neutrino flux.
- Meteorologists would have to be in on it as well, since they fly planes into hurricanes and such over such long distances that the discrepancies between distance models would show up. They would have to work together with the space agencies to generate false images of hurricanes that match the locations where they strike.
- Ancient cartographers would have to have been in on it.
- Anyone who ever said they've been to the South Pole who have to be in on it.
- Somehow, this world-wide cooperation would have to hold despite the inability of the world's governments to play nice with each other on other important matters such as economics, law, land rights and military action.

Can you provide any compelling evidence for the existence of such a world-wide cover-up and explain how the biggest conspiracy in history has managed to elude exposure for hundreds of years or more?

 

[buddhist]

So you really do believe it is a massive conspiracy. Why? Why would anyone fake this? What is their motive?

I think there's a mix of half-truths and misinterpretations from every direction, yet the vast majority of men and woman cannot say that they know for sure what Earth really is, or looks like.

As for "conspiracy" - I don't know. I suspect that might be in the best interest of the existing power structures to ensure that the status quo is maintained, lest religious, political, and economic systems are upended to their detriment.

I'm sure most posters here are intelligent enough to understand that certain structures must maintain and feed certain images, or their legitimacy, power, and money would be threatened.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

On these videos, it is evident to me that the horizon is constantly fluctuating from a convex to a concave shape (especially at the far left and right of the frame), even at low altitudes. I see it beginning at 48 seconds in the first video, and at around the same point in the last video. As a part-time photographer, this is evident to me that a fish-eye lens is being used; in my personal experience a fish-eye lens will always distort what is captured, and things will appear curved. It appears that the GoPro cameras and lenses were used, and the manufacturer even has instructions on how to minimize the curvature effect while using their equipment.

This circumstantial evidence fails my criteria for validity.

I don't think you understand what "circumstantial evidence" means.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think there's a mix of half-truths and misinterpretations from every direction, yet the vast majority of men and woman cannot say that they know for sure what Earth really is, or looks like.

It's a rock composed mostly of iron, most of the surface is covered by water, and huge swaths of the surface that isn't under water are barren desert. We have various climates: these climates are determined largely by the relative position of these on the Earth (such as, it's really cold at the poles but really hot closer to the equator), and these individual climates determine what sort of biota is found in that area. From the frozen tundra to the deep forests to the vast deserts, it all sits on a roughly egg-shaped chunk of iron that is floating in space, held in place by the gravitational pull of our sun.

 

[buddhist]

Except fish-eye lenses don't produce a consistent curvature on a single plane - that's not how they work. Furthermore, you didn't answer my question: why has nobody ever done a similar experiment and produced images of a flat earth?

Please see post 175.

I also think you don't understand what "circumstantial evidence" means.

In regards to this particular topic, information such as "the shadow on the moon" is circumstantial.

"The shadow on the moon" is direct evidence only for ... "the shadow on the moon". It is circumstantial evidence for "the earth must be round".

"The horizon is flat" is also direct evidence only for ... "the horizon is flat'. It too, is circumstantial evidence for "the earth must be flat"

Direct evidence for "the earth must be round" or "the earth must be flat" is when I see for myself, that the "earth is round" or "the earth is flat" with my own eyes.