The Bible Was Right. The Earth Is Flat.

[Curious George]

I prefer to believe that I'm the blind man who pursues truth, witholding final judgment until I see the whole for myself.

Is pursuing truth not analyzing the information we have. I understand that you will reserve final judgment, But why not engage in analysis of the evidence we have?

 

[Skwim]

I do not know.
The information exists on the internet.

Then I assume both the size and the distance are in accord with what science has determined. However, If this is the case it makes the animation in post 27 look awfully silly. Just saying.

It seems to me if we spent more time talking to each other rather than trying to prove the other wrong, we might learn something.

When you come to a debate forum, which this is, you're pretty much expected to debate. That means taking a side and trying to stand up for it.


.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

000 -- What evidence does he have to stipulate how the Sun and the Moon revolve? By what mechanism does this motion occur? Why does the sun and the moon "speed up" during its journeys during the first 6 months then slow down and revolve tighter in the 2nd half? This person makes assertions without evidence or explanations of "why" or "how" it works; so why should he be taken seriously?

2:46 -- If we are to calculate, with a sextant, how big the sun and the moon are, we must have an idea how far away the sun and the moon are. This is like measuring the height of a 6' man standing 1" in front of you then measuring a 6' man standing a mile away from you. The only way you're going to get accurate measurements from this using trigonometry is by knowing how far away the object you are measuring truly is. By measuring both the Sun and the Moon the same size (32 miles), Mr. Dunce has predetermined the distance of the Sun and Moon. His authoritative sounding assertions are meaningless without this explanation. This is not evidence.

3:12 -- Mr. Dunce has predetermined the distance of the Sun and the Moon to be 3,000 miles off the surface; yet provides no explanation on how he reached the conclusion how far away they are. This is not evidence.

3:24 -- "ball earthers" measurements do not change on whims; they change on evidence. Comparing measurements attained by people with sextants to measurements attained by high-powered telescopes is like marveling at why ancient man couldn't detect the presence of bacteria before microscopes. This assertion is ridiculous. This is not evidence.

3:54 -- Lack of curvature has been explained in an earlier post regarding the angle of view required to see the earth's curvature. Lack of curvature in pictures from cameras lacking that angle of view is to be expected. This is not evidence.

4:10 -- "Hot Spot" or light refraction? Did he measure the temperature of the "hot spot" and compare it to the temperatures of what was around it? Nope ... He just saw the bright spot and said, "Oh! Hot spot!" This is not evidence.

4:34 -- We know that water refracts light and that there is water vapor in the atmosphere. Claiming that the "light comes in from different angles" (through the bending action of the water molecules that bend light) as proof of ... something ... pretending that light doesn't refract from water vapor ... well ... This is not evidence.

6:45 -- The "defense mechanism" is knowledge; like understanding a mechanism is required to explain the mysterious orbiting/speed fluctuations in the revolution; that trigonometry requires at least 2 measurements for the 3rd to be accurate; explanations regarding how certain conclusions were attained are necessary; that water molecules bend light ...

10:01 -- Quantas Airlines flies over the antarctic as a major tourist attraction, so the assertion that "no one has flown over the Antarctic" is false. This is more than "not evidence"; this is a false statement; I wonder if it was an intentional lie?

10:01 -- The claim that polar circumnavigations have not occurred is also a false statement; Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Charles Burton, started 1979, ended 1980, did exactly that: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface

10:59 -- It only stands to reason that if you don't believe in "outer space" or "ball earther", then you would deny the space program. AS far as the moon being transparent? He provides no explanation of what the moon is made of; and seeing objects "behind" the moon has already been explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity ... debunking the "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory is beyond the scope of this thread.

12:12 -- Every light needs a light source. What is the source of light for the Sun and the Moon? Stating that they are "lights" makes no sense as "light" must have a source. This is not evidence.

=============================================================

Anyone who considers this ridiculous film as "evidence" needs to take a course in critical thinking and deductive reasoning.

Showing the logic errors in this film isn't even difficult ........

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It seems to me if we spent more time talking to each other rather than trying to prove the other wrong, we might learn something.

There is nothing to be learned from ideas of a flat Earth. It just is not flat, and based on even naked-eye observations it is impossible for it to be flat.

 

[buddhist]

Is pursuing truth not analyzing the information we have. I understand that you will reserve final judgment, But why not engage in analysis of the evidence we have?

I have. After my personal evaluation of the circumstantial evidences available, I have concluded that there is a greater weight of evidence for the flat-earth position.

Is there an assumption that, because I do not favor the round-earth position, that I have not engaged in any analysis whatsoever?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have. After my personal evaluation of the circumstantial evidences available, I have concluded that there is a greater weight of evidence for the flat-earth position.

Try my set up with the light and balls. You will not be able to replicate anything that resembles our day/night cycles, our lunar cycles, or our eclipses with a flat object representing Earth. You have to have round objects to achieve this.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I have. After my personal evaluation of the circumstantial evidences available, I have concluded that there is a greater weight of evidence for the flat-earth position.

Is there an assumption that, because I do not favor the round-earth position, that I have not engaged in any analysis whatsoever?

Obviously not.

 

[Curious George]

I have. After my personal evaluation of the circumstantial evidences available, I have concluded that there is a greater weight of evidence for the flat-earth position.

Is there an assumption that, because I do not favor the round-earth position, that I have not engaged in any analysis whatsoever?

No, the assumption stems from your reluctance to discuss the evidence.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'll take the minority here too, the Earth is an extended, flat, motionless plane and not a spinning ball/sphere. There are plenty of common sense reasons for this too, and the crowd is deceived.

 

[buddhist]

Try my set up with the light and balls. You will not be able to replicate anything that resembles our day/night cycles, our lunar cycles, or our eclipses with a flat object representing Earth. You have to have round objects to achieve this.

Lunar eclipses have occurred when both the sun and moon are in the sky above the horizon.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are plenty of common sense reasons for this too, and the crowd is deceived.

There is not one single valid reason to think the Earth is flat. Get a telescope. Watch the planets. Watch satellites. Pay attention the terrain of the moon you can see (you can do this with the naked eye). And with a flat Earth, how do you explain the fact that the other half of the Earth is seeing daylight rather than night?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Lunar eclipses have occurred when both the sun and moon are in the sky above the horizon.

To you, it would be the horizon. Those many miles away, it's looking up in the sky.

 

[buddhist]

No, the assumption stems from your reluctance to discuss the evidence.

That is because this topic is a minor concern to me; it does not affect my daily life in any substantial way. What matters much more to me is the fact that belief - no matter how strong - is not knowledge, whether we are addressing this topic, addressing religion, or any other issue.

 

[buddhist]

To you, it would be the horizon. Those many miles away, it's looking up in the sky.

Orthodox cosmology says lunar eclipses occur because the Earth is between the moon and the sun. How does the moon produce an eclipse when the sun is in the sky along with the moon, and the Earth is clearly not between the two?

 

[Parsimony]

I think I shared this link in an earlier post.

The amount of scientific ignorance in that document is amazing. They make plenty of claims, but where are the calculations to back them up? The Arctic and Antarctic shouldn't have such different temperatures on a round Earth? Birds wouldn't be able to fly on a round Earth? Fish couldn't swim on a round Earth? Where are they getting this stuff? If they want to be taken seriously, they need to show the math to demonstrate that their reasoning is sound. It would also help if they understood basic principles of science that are testable with household items (like Newton's law of action-reaction, which they ignore when claiming that the Moon wouldn't be able to cause tides because its gravity is weaker than Earth's).

This one is particularly bad:

The idea that people are standing, ships are sailing and
planes are flying upside down on certain parts of Earth while
others tilted at 90 degrees and all other impossible angles is
complete absurdity. The idea that a man digging a hole
straight down could eventually reach sky on the other side is
ludicrous.Common sense tells every free-thinking person
correctly that there truly is an “up” and “down” in nature,
unlike the “everything is relative” rhetoric of the
Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm.

They aren't even making an appeal to evidence here or even really making an argument. They are just saying "common sense says so therefore it's right" (despite the fact that some things that are "common sense" are demonstrably wrong and that different people have different conceptions of common sense). To me, it's common sense that a world-wide conspiracy to cover up a flat Earth would prove impractical. So does that mean I'm right because my common sense tells me so?

 

[allfoak]

From the perspective of many here on this thread i am a fool.
I wear the badge with honor.

To the spiritually minded among us there is reason to explore this idea of a flat earth and at this point in the discussion even some reason to accept some of the ideas associated with it.
This reason cannot be seen by those who are unable or unwilling to seek it out.
This being the case, i am called a fool, believing in fairy tales.

When i say that everyone has access to the knowledge needed to prove these things for themselves it is ignored and an appeal to what the experts say is presented over and over again, as if i am not aware of what the experts have told me since i was 4.
I have had the same "education" as the rest of you.
As a result of a 35yr search for the truth i have come to realize that much of what i was taught was either only half of the picture or in some cases just outright lies.
Gnosis is the reason i can make a statement like that.
When access to gnosis is kept from the people anything can be taught as truth.

What it is that you all want from me i cannot give to you.
I am unable to convince anyone of something they are unable to even consider.
Without the proper balance one's perspective is limited.

Maybe the original poster @Stokley can provide the answers your looking for.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is because this topic is a minor concern to me; it does not affect my daily life in any substantial way. What matters much more to me is the fact that belief - no matter how strong - is not knowledge, whether we are addressing this topic, addressing religion, or any other issue.

Oh, I see, so you're just being a contrarian for the sake of making yourself feel more intelligent than everyone else by dismissing all reasoning and evidence as being "circumstantial" and equating all beliefs as being essentially equal in factual validity in order to drag every belief down to the level of your own?

As has been explained, you do not know what circumstantial evidence is, you have no understanding of any of the facts in this case, and you have only come to your judgement because you are a contrarian who is not interested in facts. This may seem like a minor concern to you, but it has incredibly deep implications. If you cannot accept the basic fact that the earth is round, then that shows either a deep and impenetrable delusion, an utter lack of logical reasoning, or a pathological level of dishonesty.

 

[buddhist]

From the perspective of many here on this thread i am a fool.
I wear the badge with honor.

To the spiritually minded among us there is reason to explore this idea of a flat earth and at this point in the discussion even some reason to accept some of the ideas associated with it.
This reason cannot be seen by those who are unable or unwilling to seek it out.
This being the case, i am called a fool, believing in fairy tales.

When i say that everyone has access to the knowledge needed to prove these things for themselves it is ignored and an appeal to what the experts say is presented over and over again, as if i am not aware of what the experts have told me since i was 4.
I have had the same "education" as the rest of you.
As a result of a 35yr search for the truth i have come to realize that much of what i was taught was either only half of the picture or in some cases just outright lies.
Gnosis is the reason i can make a statement like that.
When access to gnosis is kept from the people anything can be taught as truth.

What it is that you all want from me i cannot give to you.
I am unable to convince anyone of something they are unable to even consider.
Without the proper balance one's perspective is limited.

Maybe the original poster @Stokley can provide the answers your looking for.

Well said! I stand with you.

The man who knows he begins as a fool, is the man who walks the true journey of wisdom.

 

[Shad]

I disagree, please see my last post.

Then you have no idea what knowledge means and has for centuries. Your disagreement is useless.

 

[Shad]

Is it unrealistic for people to claim that their chosen religion must be true because of various circumstantial evidences?

Circumstantial evidence is not invalid. Beside we have more than circumstantial evidence. We had people in orbit at different times over 4 decades, we have people traveling across the world, we have cameras in orbit, we have camera on probes beyond orbits. Heck we had two UK carriers deployed from England that joined the Pacific Fleet USN during attacks on Japan in WW2. My belief is well justified thus knowledge. Your believe in unjustified as there is evidence against it and none for it.