The Bible Was Right. The Earth Is Flat.

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The teachings of the Buddha is mostly very sound; when it comes to religion, as an antithesis, I will state that Buddhism is the least offensive at worst; unoffensive at best. I, myself, used to be a student of that particular philosophy; though for a short time; so let me take a crack at this:

• Do not accept anything on mere hearsay (ie, thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time).I agree with this teaching. We are not asking you to do this. The fact that the earth is round has many demonstrable evidences; from the visible curvature to the equations of gravitation to the seasons and on and on the list goes. It is not "hearsay" that we are asking you to trust; it is knowledge-based conclusive findings.
• Do not accept anything by mere tradition (ie, thinking that it has been handed down thus through many generations). I agree with this teaching. There are many traditions throughout time who have attributed the shape of the earth to either a flat plane to a sphere; and probably more shapes.To accept something through understanding is not the same as accepting by tradition. To reject something simply because it is tradition (to make sure we don't accept something by mere tradition) is the opposing force of this error; thus it can also be said "Do not reject anything for it being tradition".
  
• Do not accept anything on account of rumours (ie, by believing what others say without any investigation). I agree with this teaching. The shape of the earth as a sphere is not a rumor. It is demonstrable.
• Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. I agree with this teaching. We are not using scriptures to demonstrate the spherical shape of the earth. As in the OP, there are those who are using their scriptures to conclude that the earth is flat. This is not the case with "ball earthers".
• Do not accept anything by mere supposition. .I agree with this teaching. We are not asking you to do this. We do not "suppose" the earth is a sphere without evidence to back it up.
• Do not accept anything by mere inference. .I agree with this teaching. We are not asking you to do this. It is not by mere inference of one or two points that stipulates the shape of this world.
• Do not accept anything by merely considering the appearances.I agree with this teaching. But isn't that what you are, in fact, doing? You, yourself, has spoken of seeing cities accross lakes where the line of sight should not exist. You are using this experience to justify your belief, are you not? Likewise, you are using an apparently flat horizon to substantiate your claim. Is not the city you shouldn't see and the apparent flat horizon nothing more than appearances?
  
• Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions. I agree with this teaching. It is not based on a "preconceived notion" that the earth is a sphere. It is based on; as I have said; that any other shape means that we know nothing about nothing. Before science and knowledge were introduced to us as children, we probably never gave thought of the shape of the earth. If asked, I'm sure msot children not schooled would state that the earth was flat; as it appears flat; thus the acceptance of sometihng based on appearances and preconceived notions.
• Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable (ie, should be accepted). I agree with this teaching. We are not asking you to do this. The fact that the earth is round has many demonstrable evidences. We do not state that the earth is spherical because that is the acceptable stance. We accept that the earth is spherical because it is consistent with all other evidences.
• Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (and that therefore it is right to accept his word.) I agree with this teaching. We are not asking you to do this. The fact that the earth is round has many demonstrable evidences; from the visible curvature to the equations of gravitation to the seasons and on and on the list goes. It is not "hearsay" that we are asking you to trust; it is knowledge-based conclusive findings.

But when you know for yourselves ... then live and act accordingly. - Kalama sutta "Know for yourself" does not necessarily mean "experience for yourself". You are taking this passage beyond its intended message. IN fact, to base your "knowledge" merely on first-han experience is accepting something by appearances and your own preconceived notions. It is also based solely on one's ego. As Buddha and science both teach: Our own perceptions are always in question and should not be trusted explicitly. Budda certainly did not intend that we base everything we know on mere first-hand experience.

 

[Skwim]

I have seen a whole city skyline with my own eyes with magnification, from over 50 miles away across a lake, while calculations involving a spherical earth says that I should not be able to see it at all.

So how high above lake level were you and how high above lake level was the city skyline? These are essential factors that need to be taken into consideration. But we can find out easily enough.

1) Where were you ?
2) What lake was it?
3) What city skyline was it?​

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So how high above lake level were you and how high above lake level was the city skyline? These are essential factors. But we can find out easily enough. Where were you, what lake was it, and what city skyline was it.

Research Fatana Morgana and Superior Mirage. Both gravity and water molecules bend light. When the conditions are correct, light from distant lands and/or cities can be bent, presenting us with the mirage ... a bending of light through gravity and water molecules to present the illusion that we are seeing land in the distance; cities across the bay; cities in the clouds.

 

[Skwim]

Research Fatana Morgana and Superior Mirage. Both gravity and water molecules bend light. When the conditions are correct, light from distant lands and/or cities can be bent, presenting us with the mirage ... a bending of light through gravity and water molecules to present the illusion that we are seeing land in the distance; cities across the bay; cities in the clouds.

Fata Morgana (note proper spelling) may possibly have been involved I suppose, but in as much as it's a rare atmospheric phenomenon I'd prefer to see what comes out of the wash with the relevant figures I asked for.

 

[allfoak]

There seems to be some misunderstanding of what i am saying as usual.
It is not the fault of the posters but my own inability to explain myself.
Be patient please.

I am here and now making a distinction between my self and flat earthers.
I do not want to be identified with either side of the debate.
I do however want to continue to discuss these ideas and clear up some of the misconceptions that exist, as well as clearing out some of the crap that is associated with this debate on the internet.
Let me get this straight, I do not think that we live like those in the movie The "Truman Show".

I am not afraid to confront some of my own misconceptions in the process of coming to understand this, this is how it all works.
I think this forum may lend itself to the possibility of being able to discuss this without it getting ugly.
I will argue my own perspective of this debate which may or may not reflect the flat earth position.
While i think that this forum holds the possibility of being able to discuss this i am not going to put up with childish or mean behavior.
I retain the right to abandon this discussion at any time and for whatever reason i please without having to justify it to anyone.
Contrary to popular belief, we all have that right, without having to be judged for it.

So here goes....
The flat earth concept holds a lot of intriguing ideas that i am not ready to abandon.
When i am able to understand it completely i know the answer will be somewhere in the middle of Flat earth and Ball earth ideas.
I am certain the answer lies within a paradox and i am yet to be able to wrap my little brain around it.
With the help of some of the minds on this forum maybe some understanding can be reached.

I do not think the earth is any more flat than my body is flat.
What i do think is that we do not necessarily live on a perfectly shaped ball as we are led to believe either.
I see the earth much like our bodies are shaped.

The reason that i am arguing this at all is because it opens the door to a discussion about the sphere that is created around the earth by the magnetic field.
It makes no difference the shape of the earth, although i do not see how the body of the earth could be a perfect ball given the violence of the universe.
Some places appear round while others appear flat.
I have a flat stomach and a round head.
I am making a distinction between the surface of the earth and that which surrounds it.
Like us, the body and the mind (the magnetic field) of the earth are completely different.
So what we have essentially is a dome of sorts around ourselves and around the earth but they are magnetic in nature not glass or some other strange material.

If i were on my body looking out what would i see?
I think i would see a sphere because my perspective would be all inclusive, i could see in all directions.
Since I am standing on the surface of the earth and looking out it looks spherical.
But when i look at the body of another i see all sorts of shapes.

When i leave the surface of the earth and i look at the earth like i would look at another person's body i would get a better idea of the shape.
Are the pictures accurate?
I have no idea.
I suspect they are doctored, but in what way and how much i do not know.
I know that most of the pictures of space and the objects in it that are shown to the public are "artists renditions".
How much artistic license is allowed is beyond what i am able to know.

I am trying to understand this from a spiritual perspective as well as a material perspective.
I know that we are all our own center of the universe looking out.
This means that the earth and everything else in the universe is also their own center of their universe.
Since it is all three dimensional and we can see in four directions, it all looks spherical.

More later....

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

What i do think is that we do not necessarily live on a perfectly shaped ball as we are led to believe either.

We don't.

The diameter of the earth at the equator is 7,926.41 miles.
The diameter of the earth at the poles is 7,901 miles.

This is why I have been referring to the Earth as spheroid.
Upon further research, the correct term is ellipsoid.

It will have its flat spots and its rounded spots, etc.

I don't think any "ball earther" would describe it as a perfect sphere.

Your posts seem more to me a philosophical exercise. It seems to me that you are trying to insert much more into the discussion than what is really there.

The shape of the earth is not up to perceptions or philosophical debate. It exists in the physical realm as a physical thing. It is not abstract. As such, it is either a sphere or it is not (it is not). It is either ellipsoid or it is not (it is). It is either a flat "disc shape" or it is not (and it is not). It can not exist "somewhere in the middle". To state that it does violates a basic rule of logic of the "excluded middle".

 

[allfoak]

@NewGuyOnTheBlock
I have never subscribed to the flat disc shape idea.
My posts have been clear about that.
I have consistently said the same thing you have.

 

[David M]

I personally lean towards the belief that the Earth is relatively flat. The Buddhist scriptures also seem to speak of a flat earth. If I'm not mistaken, most ancient religions taught of a flat earth, and people have believed in a flat earth for millenia except for the last couple hundred years.

Then you would be mistaken, people have known the earth was spherical for thousands of years.

 

[David M]

As I've heard, airplane windows are curved - not flat. Therefore, they exhibit the same visual distortion issues as found in fish-eye lenses on cameras.

Additionally, even if we see a "round" shape on a plane, is it the roundness of a sphere, or the roundness of a flat circle you're possible seeing?

No they don't have the same distortion issues, that is patently obvious when you look out the window while on the ground.

Its the roundness of a sphere, any reasonable number of long distance flights in different directions will illustrate that. I have made such flights from the UK (Brazil, Australia, Singapore and Bali, South Africa plus many within Europe).

But the simplest and most obvious disproof of the flat earth suggestion is that the visible stars and constellations are completely different when you compare the night sky in Australia or South Africa to anywhere in Europe. If the earth was flat Polaris would be visible everywhere, and it isn't.

 

[David M]

I've no desire to debate circumstancial evidence here. There is circumstantial evidence on the flat-earth side as well.

My standard is personal knowledge.

Its not circumstantial evidence. That you reject a valid way of establishing facts via personal knowledge establishes the "veracity" of any claim to seek the truth.

 

[Mycroft]

Flat earth? Hell, it isn't even level.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Feel free to IM me if you've directly seen, as a whole, the shape of the Earth for yourself.

Not by alleged pictures, photos, videos, or anything second-hand. For yourself.

Until then, any other argument is - by definition - circumstantial and inferential, or are simply personal attacks. I'm not interested in pursuing any of that.

You are a very smart person. This is a fine way to hold to your false belief (if you actually believe it and are not here debating this foolishness for lack of anything better to do) of a flat earth. Even I know that anyone who has "SEEN" the entire earth first hand is either still out there, dead, or somewhere else, but certainly not on here. If someone was to come on here and say they had seen the earth and that it is a globe, you would ask them for "PROOF" and call them a liar. There is nothing, nor anyone that can prove anything to someone who doesn't want to see the truth.