Flat earthers?

[DanieltheDragon]

Flat earth belief is still around to this day. They even have elaborate apologetics dedicated to it not unlike creationists. Yet even among Christian groups they are frequently dismissed. Yet I find this strange. This dismissal among Christians of flat earth belief.

The way I see all Christian belief whether flat earth, young earth, old earth, or what have you are equally unbelievable. To me each group latches on to a particular mindset that speaks to them and ignores evidence to the contrary.

Why is Flat earth theory treated with such disrepect compared to other Christian beliefs?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 259 by Trump]

The Earth is flat because of observation, and the seas are flat and level too, that's why we call it sea-level. Can you imagine the force it would take to hold the oceans to a spinning ball so perfectly? Especially on a ball that's spinning on an axis at 1000mph while exposed to the vacuum of space? Have you seen what happens to water when exposed to a vacuum? It freezes, yet we have fluffy clouds floating around, and cirrus clouds that go up to 20,000 feet, yet not sucked into the infinite vacuum of space!

The Earth is an oblate spheroid because of observation, not flat. But it is clear you are ignoring centuries of science and observation and pulling random YouTube videos to try and support your nonsensical opinions. The oceans, as well as the atmosphere, are gravitationally bound to the earth which is why they stay put as the Earth rotates. The force of gravity is strong enough to do this, obviously, because the oceans and atmosphere are not boiling off into space. You don't seem to appreciate the force of gravity .. or maybe you don't believe that exists and is just a made-up idea that you can support with yet another YouTube video?

If the atmosphere were not gravitationally bound to the Earth, the wind would be blowing 1000 MPH when you went outside (and got immediately killed by the building and other debris that would be flying around in that case). The atmospheric pressure at nominal STP is 1 1013.25 millibar (1 atmosphere). The number of molecules per cubic cm is called Loschmidt's number and is equal to 2.687e19. That is a hell of a large number of molecules, and it creates a pressure at Earth's surface of about 14.7 lbs per square inch. Pressure drops as you go up in altitude because the number density of air molecules decreases. At 100,000' the air pressure is 0.16 PSI, which is still 3e17 molecules/cm3 ... 300 million billion! Even at 380 miles up the air pressure is 7e-11 PSI, or 1.3e8 molecules/cm3.

Gravity holds the relatively thick Earth's atmosphere down to the Earth, and it spins with the Earth. This is a proven fact that you can't ignore or counter with some crackpot YouTube video. Ever heard of Rossby waves? Why does weather generally move from west to east? Why does the sun "rise" in the east? The reason globes are in classrooms is because if has been known the Earth was spherical since about 600 BC. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth in 240 BC and got it within about 15%. Now we have photos and video from outside the Earth's atmosphere (from the moon, from orbiting satellites, etc.) that confirm what has been known for ~2700 years ... the Earth is spherical. The term "sea level" means the Earth is not spherical? ... give us a break!

[Bust Nak]

Why would a member of the Christian Religion go against a doctrine they created?

Because not all member of the Christian Religion believe in the same doctrine.

Thanks again. So no Usergroup for flat earth on a 14 year old Christian Forum? Could it be that no one made it to the cost of this special Usergroup? Just asking?

You are the only out right flat Earther that's has joined our forum, as far as I can remember.

You see nebulas, I see "innumerable stars" that look like clouds because there are so many of them. But I will try to avoid saying "clouds of stars in our heavens" and instead use "clouds of gas and dust in outer space".

Well at least you are acknowledging that there is something out that that looked like clouds to see in the first place. So why would you suggest that NASA was using cgi when we can already see it, even if we don't agree on the nature of what we are seeing?

No sir, it was the News about "New, intercontinental telecommunication cables being put under our oceans" and I pass by these so called satellites on mountain tops, and on tall buildings, that our home satellite-dishes are pointing at.

What seems to be the problem here? What is the point you are trying to make?

Besides, if there were any satellites in space, then we would never have seen this commercial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYoM2HlqW4

Why not?

I see you are one of the moderators, isn't that like a conflict of interest or something like that?

No, we moderate on rude behaviour, not on the message of the posts; and as a rule of thumb we don't moderate posters that we are actively arguing with.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 259 by Trump]

Can you imagine the force it would take to hold the oceans to a spinning ball so perfectly? Especially on a ball that's spinning on an axis at 1000mph while exposed to the vacuum of space? Have you seen what happens to water when exposed to a vacuum? It freezes, yet we have fluffy clouds floating around, and cirrus clouds that go up to 20,000 feet, yet not sucked into the infinite vacuum of space!

Just another comment on this misunderstanding you have about gravity and how it can hold the atmosphere and oceans to the Earth despite the rotational velocity of the Earth. The 14.7 lbs/in^2 surface pressure of air is a "column" pressure ... ie. it is the result of all the air above that one square inch from ground level to the top of the atmosphere. From the molecular weight of "air" (roughly 78% N2 and 21% O2, with smaller amounts of a lot of other molecules), which is about 29 g/mole, you can work out the mass of a 1 cm^3 volume of air.

From your high school chemistry class, a mole is Avogadro's number of anything ... 6.02e23. Loschmidt's number says that at STP a 1 cm^3 volume of air (1013.25 mb, 273K) there are 2.687e19 molecules of air, which would be 1.3e-3g of air (2.687e19 / 6.02e23 = 4.45e-5 moles, times 29 g/mole = 1.3e-3g).

For an example of how this adds up, take an American football field's playing area of 100 yards x 50 yards. This is 9144 x 4572 cm or an area of 4.2e7 cm^2. If you go just 1 cm above that surface the volume would be 4.2e7 cm^3. Multiplying that by 1.3e-3g/cm^3 gives 5.46e4g or ~120 lbs (at 453.6 g/lb). So the weight of air in a volume just 1m above the playing area of a football field is 120 * 100 = 12,000 lbs = 6 tons.

You can also work out the total weight of the atmosphere using the formula for the surface area of a sphere (4*pi*R^2 where R is the Earth's radius). This amounts to 7.9e17 square inches * 14.7 lbs/in^2 = 1.17e19 lbs! That is what gravity works against and gravity is plenty strong enough to hold this mass to the Earth as it spins. The total mass of ocean water is roughly 2.9e21 lbs, or about 1e-6 of the total Earth mass. So even more mass for gravity to work with, but notice that this is only about 100x the mass of the atmosphere.

You made a comment about clouds floating around at 20,000'. That isn't anywhere near a vacuum (pressure is still 6.8 PSI at that altitude ... only a little less than half of ground level). This is a low enough altitude that there is no chance of them vaporating into the vacuum of space, which is many miles higher. Noctilucent clouds can exist at altitudes as high as 280,000 feet ... 53 miles where there is still 1.5e15 air molecules per cm2 ... not even close to the vacuum of space.

[Trump]

Why would a member of the Christian Religion go against a doctrine they created?

Because not all member of the Christian Religion believe in the same doctrine.

Scientific doctrine? Are you saying the church adapted science into their religious doctrines, into creation itself?

Thanks again. So no Usergroup for flat earth on a 14 year old Christian Forum? Could it be that no one made it to the cost of this special Usergroup? Just asking?

You are the only out right flat Earther that's has joined our forum, as far as I can remember.

From a Christian perspective, that's amazing, and frightening at the same time. The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, plants, animals and man with His hands, and that the earth stands on pillars with a dome above it, and no Christian ever found that defendable, you know what I mean? I'm including myself since it is only like 8 months ago that I looked into the 'Flat Earth' seriously.

You see nebulas, I see "innumerable stars" that look like clouds because there are so many of them. But I will try to avoid saying "clouds of stars in our heavens" and instead use "clouds of gas and dust in outer space".

Well at least you are acknowledging that there is something out that that looked like clouds to see in the first place. So why would you suggest that NASA was using cgi when we can already see it, even if we don't agree on the nature of what we are seeing?

NASA supposedly, is about science, not about just what things look like, or imagined to be (stars as planets, trillions of stars as space dust left over from a Big-Bang etc.)
Genesis 22:17, 32:12, Jerimiah 32:22 symbolic vs. observation.

No sir, it was the News about "New, intercontinental telecommunication cables being put under our oceans" and I pass by these so called satellites on mountain tops, and on tall buildings, that our home satellite-dishes are pointing at.

What seems to be the problem here? What is the point you are trying to make?

They're towers and cables, not satellites in space.

Besides, if there were any satellites in space, then we would never have seen this commercial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYoM2HlqW4

Why not?

It would cover more than 2-3 mile areas at a time, but we always did have that problem with radio towers, which today NASA tries to pass off as satellites in space.

I see you are one of the moderators, isn't that like a conflict of interest or something like that?

No, we moderate on rude behaviour, not on the message of the posts; and as a rule of thumb we don't moderate posters that we are actively arguing with.

[/quote]

Sounds good to me, let me thank you for moderating then; thank you.

[Trump]

[Replying to post 259 by Trump]

The Earth is flat because of observation, and the seas are flat and level too, that's why we call it sea-level. Can you imagine the force it would take to hold the oceans to a spinning ball so perfectly? Especially on a ball that's spinning on an axis at 1000mph while exposed to the vacuum of space? Have you seen what happens to water when exposed to a vacuum? It freezes, yet we have fluffy clouds floating around, and cirrus clouds that go up to 20,000 feet, yet not sucked into the infinite vacuum of space!

The Earth is an oblate spheroid because of observation, not flat.

So not pear shaped like Mr. Tyson said? Can you show me an actual photograph of this "oblate spheroid", with the ISS, Hubble, space shuttles and the thousands of satellites floating in space, we should have thousands of them?

But it is clear you are ignoring centuries of science and observation and pulling random YouTube videos to try and support your nonsensical opinions.

Centuries of science observation of what? Of Earth as viewed from outer space?
Not something from thousands or even hundreds of years ago, but please show me NASA "observations" besides CGI 3-d cartoons, artist rendered pics, or children's cartoons? The very foundation of NASA is built on Star Wars type modeling, paintings and cartoons.

Yes, I use YouTube videos that fit my own observations. It is far from "randomly pulling them out" since NASA and affiliates make their own mock-flat earth videos which they later make fun of.

The oceans, as well as the atmosphere, are gravitationally bound to the earth which is why they stay put as the Earth rotates. The force of gravity is strong enough to do this, obviously, because the oceans and atmosphere are not boiling off into space. You don't seem to appreciate the force of gravity .. or maybe you don't believe that exists and is just a made-up idea that you can support with yet another YouTube video?

You don't like me showing them videos, fine, let's just use common sense. You say that the force of gravity is strong enough to hold all the waters on earth to a globe ball while spinning 1,000mph on it's axis. Now take a nice furry tennis ball and soak it in water, then throw it with a spin. You see what happens? Notice how the water quickly accumulates in the middle and sprays out? Now imagine that in space-vacuum?

Then, take a cup of water and put it in a vacuum chamber (could show you videos, but you don't like them) and as you can see, it boils first, then it freezes. But the supposed vacuum in space is far more powerful than any vacuum chamber on earth, yet we have warm waters, and fluffy rain clouds covering this supposed tiny planet that has been spinning and twirling through the vastness of this cold space-vacuum for billions and billions of years.

If the atmosphere were not gravitationally bound to the Earth, the wind would be blowing 1000 MPH when you went outside (and got immediately killed by the building and other debris that would be flying around in that case). The atmospheric pressure at nominal STP is 1 1013.25 millibar (1 atmosphere). The number of molecules per cubic cm is called Loschmidt's number and is equal to 2.687e19. That is a hell of a large number of molecules, and it creates a pressure at Earth's surface of about 14.7 lbs per square inch. Pressure drops as you go up in altitude because the number density of air molecules decreases. At 100,000' the air pressure is 0.16 PSI, which is still 3e17 molecules/cm3 ... 300 million billion! Even at 380 miles up the air pressure is 7e-11 PSI, or 1.3e8 molecules/cm3.

If this gravity was as you say, our children would not be flying kites, nor would we have a supposed planet like moon with a mass of 7.35 x 1022 kg orbiting Earth at a distance of 38,900 miles for the past 4 billion years. Planes would not be carried with the wind at 1000 mph, there would be a huge difference between flying East, from flying West.
If you don't want me to show videos, use common sense.
God created laws, everything has its place on the earth through density and buoyancy. What goes up, must come down.

If gravity could pull the moisture to the earth, then hold the waters to this "oblate spheroid" for over 4 billion years, then everything would eventually be pulled in. Do the math, or play with some magnets with different sizes of metal shavings.

Remember that in your space-vacuum, there is no buoyancy, this so called gravity would pull everything to the object with the biggest mass, .. like your sun that supposedly weighs 1.989 × 10^30 kg.

Gravity holds the relatively thick Earth's atmosphere down to the Earth, and it spins with the Earth. This is a proven fact that you can't ignore or counter with some crackpot YouTube video.

So now even the atmosphere is thick, I mean it's water right?
The earth spinning is not a proven fact, nor that the earth is an "oblate spheroid", and a brief observation of something like a ball spinning between 1mph at the it's axis to 1000 mph at its equator has very different effects on the things laying on it, we don't need a video to prove that, just common sense.

Ever heard of Rossby waves? Why does weather generally move from west to east? Why does the sun "rise" in the east?

Heard of electromagnetism? Rub a air-filled balloon against your hair, now let the water run from your faucet, and slowly put the balloon next to the running water.

See how the electromagnetic balloon pulls the water towards it?

That's something like how the sun is, pulls the moisture towards it. Also the sun has heating effect, and the moon, cooling effect, which in combination with electromagnetism create all these different weather patterns that we have.

This is what's missing in the Bio domes that man creates to mimic Gods creation, an artificial sun and moon going in circles, which would created small weather patterns in the dome.

The reason globes are in classrooms is because if has been known the Earth was spherical since about 600 BC. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth in 240 BC and got it within about 15%.

Yes, pseudoscience can't deviate too much from their original story, but must build on it. This is why 2,600 years later NASA shows only CGI, or artist-rendered pictures of earth, not to deviate from the original "earth is a ball in an infinite universe" story.

Now we have photos and video from outside the Earth's atmosphere (from the moon, from orbiting satellites, etc.) that confirm what has been known for ~2700 years ... the Earth is spherical. The term "sea level" means the Earth is not spherical? ... give us a break!

[/quote]

Why didn't they leave, or take since then a nice 10" remotely controlled telescope on the moon with a video camera on it so we could all enjoy zooming in on earth as we do zooming in on the moon here?

"Live, from the moon; Earth."

Yes, water always tends to level out on a surface. But those ISS scientists could always go out on a space walk, take a big round rock, squirt water on it and video it as it covers the ball, right? Then spin it and show us what happens, instead of just playing with the water with all the exposed delicate electronics equipment in the billions of dollar ISS where the smallest malfunction could cost them their lives, and us billions and billions of dollars. Didn't they watch the movie "Gravity" up there?

Anyone can do backflips in a Zero-G plane for a mere $500 per person.

[Trump]

[Replying to post 259 by Trump]

Can you imagine the force it would take to hold the oceans to a spinning ball so perfectly? Especially on a ball that's spinning on an axis at 1000mph while exposed to the vacuum of space? Have you seen what happens to water when exposed to a vacuum? It freezes, yet we have fluffy clouds floating around, and cirrus clouds that go up to 20,000 feet, yet not sucked into the infinite vacuum of space!

Just another comment on this misunderstanding you have about gravity and how it can hold the atmosphere and oceans to the Earth despite the rotational velocity of the Earth. The 14.7 lbs/in^2 surface pressure of air is a "column" pressure ... ie. it is the result of all the air above that one square inch from ground level to the top of the atmosphere. From the molecular weight of "air" (roughly 78% N2 and 21% O2, with smaller amounts of a lot of other molecules), which is about 29 g/mole, you can work out the mass of a 1 cm^3 volume of air.

From your high school chemistry class, a mole is Avogadro's number of anything ... 6.02e23. Loschmidt's number says that at STP a 1 cm^3 volume of air (1013.25 mb, 273K) there are 2.687e19 molecules of air, which would be 1.3e-3g of air (2.687e19 / 6.02e23 = 4.45e-5 moles, times 29 g/mole = 1.3e-3g).

For an example of how this adds up, take an American football field's playing area of 100 yards x 50 yards. This is 9144 x 4572 cm or an area of 4.2e7 cm^2. If you go just 1 cm above that surface the volume would be 4.2e7 cm^3. Multiplying that by 1.3e-3g/cm^3 gives 5.46e4g or ~120 lbs (at 453.6 g/lb). So the weight of air in a volume just 1m above the playing area of a football field is 120 * 100 = 12,000 lbs = 6 tons.

You can also work out the total weight of the atmosphere using the formula for the surface area of a sphere (4*pi*R^2 where R is the Earth's radius). This amounts to 7.9e17 square inches * 14.7 lbs/in^2 = 1.17e19 lbs! That is what gravity works against and gravity is plenty strong enough to hold this mass to the Earth as it spins. The total mass of ocean water is roughly 2.9e21 lbs, or about 1e-6 of the total Earth mass. So even more mass for gravity to work with, but notice that this is only about 100x the mass of the atmosphere.

I understand you trying to justify this made up gravity, but come on, 'only' 100 times the mass of the atmosphere? Only? You ever do a belly flop cliff jumping into water?

You made a comment about clouds floating around at 20,000'. That isn't anywhere near a vacuum (pressure is still 6.8 PSI at that altitude ... only a little less than half of ground level). This is a low enough altitude that there is no chance of them vaporating into the vacuum of space, which is many miles higher. Noctilucent clouds can exist at altitudes as high as 280,000 feet ... 53 miles where there is still 1.5e15 air molecules per cm2 ... not even close to the vacuum of space.

[/quote]

Your earth IS in a vacuum, now go back, way back to where Gorges Lemaitre's just finished creating the earth, and a huge Mars sized meteor hits earth taking a big chunk which flies off, then is grabbed by this magical gravity like a lasso and pulled in just right for an orbit that has lasted for the past 4.2 billion years.

Now this magical gravity is holding the mass of 7.35 x 1022 kg which far as I know stayed at the same orbit for over 4 billion years, yet hasn't pulled in the heavy atmosphere where 1 cm^3 volume of air (1013.25 mb, 273K) there are 2.687e19 molecules of air, which would be 1.3e-3g of air (2.687e19 / 6.02e23 = 4.45e-5 moles, times 29 g/mole = 1.3e-3g) ?

Look, I know how pseudoscience works, it turns the Earth into a planet with other planets and throws it all around the sun and keeps them there by using pseudo math called quantum physics, mechanics, a body of scientific laws specifically invented for this purpose, which by the way rarely applies to our real Flat Earth.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 264 by Trump]

So not pear shaped like Mr. Tyson said? Can you show me an actual photograph of this "oblate spheroid", with the ISS, Hubble, space shuttles and the thousands of satellites floating in space, we should have thousands of them?

There are far more than simply thousands of them. The weather satellites are equipped with ever better cameras that photograph the Earth from space many times a day. The GOES satellite series have been doing this 1975 and there are many others. I expect many millions of photographs are available from all of the earth observing satellites that have been launched to date:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_E ... satellites

The TERRA satellite alone has probably returned millions of photos, and these are available if you take to effort to find them.

Centuries of science observation of what? Of Earth as viewed from outer space?

No ... we haven't been able to take photos of Earth from outer space prior to being able to build craft that can get there with cameras. But as I sent earlier the Earth was known to be spherical since as early as 600 BC from observations made at the time of the phases of the moon, the way distant ships appear mast first from any direction, and probably other observations.

I worked for NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab from 1985 to 1999 as a research scientist. We built balloon-borne and high-altitude aircraft instruments to measure gas concentrations in the upper atmosphere. We put cameras on some of the balloons that got to 110,000 feet or higher. This is plenty high enough to see the curvature of the Earth. I'll see if I can dig up an actual photo from one of these flights that was taken with my own camera, but it looked pretty much just like this one:

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-students- ... itude.html

This has been done countless times. The Earth is not flat.

The very foundation of NASA is built on Star Wars type modeling, paintings and cartoons.

Pure nonsense not even worthy of a comment.

You don't like me showing them videos, fine, let's just use common sense. You say that the force of gravity is strong enough to hold all the waters on earth to a globe ball while spinning 1,000mph on it's axis. Now take a nice furry tennis ball and soak it in water, then throw it with a spin. You see what happens? Notice how the water quickly accumulates in the middle and sprays out? Now imagine that in space-vacuum?

What has that got to do with the atmosphere and oceans being gravitationally bound to the Earth? The ratio of liquid water to tennis ball mass (and gravity) is not even remotely similar to an 8000 mile diameter rocky object with a gravitational force a gazillion times larger holding a relatively thin layer of water and air on its surface. The tennis ball doesn't have enough gravity to hold the massive amount of water to its surface. It's like your toy airplane and globe analogy earlier ... you are orders of magnitude out on the comparisons.

Then, take a cup of water and put it in a vacuum chamber (could show you videos, but you don't like them) and as you can see, it boils first, then it freezes. But the supposed vacuum in space is far more powerful than any vacuum chamber on earth, yet we have warm waters, and fluffy rain clouds covering this supposed tiny planet that has been spinning and twirling through the vastness of this cold space-vacuum for billions and billions of years.

Again, you are making an analogy that has no bearing on the real situation. If you put a cup of water in a vacuum it boils because the outside pressure is less than the internal pressure, and it is also full of air that comes out initially. The atmosphere on Earth is in a tug of war between the vacuum of space and the pull of gravity by a massive object. Gravity is enough to hold it, and the ocean water, to the surface. Your cup of water has no such gravitational counter, and the amount of water in it compared to the gravity of the cup is many orders of magnitude larger than the situation with Earth's oceans and atmosphere.

You're choosing examples that omit Earth's huge gravity completely, then try to use these to support your views. You can't leave out the most important part of the physics and then claim you've made a successful counter argument. You just don't understand gravity, or appreciate the difference in physical effects when orders of magnitude changes in scale are considered. Neither your toy airplane example, or the wet tennis ball, or the cup of water in a vacuum have anything even close to the correct relative scalings as the real things you are trying to debunk. Apples and oranges.

If this gravity was as you say, our children would not be flying kites, nor would we have a supposed planet like moon with a mass of 7.35 x 1022 kg orbiting Earth at a distance of 38,900 miles for the past 4 billion years. Planes would not be carried with the wind at 1000 mph, there would be a huge difference between flying East, from flying West.

This is getting tiring. The atmosphere rotates with the earth, so relative to the ground it is not moving at 1000 MPH. Have you never walked outside on a windless day and felt no wind at all? This actually happens. Planes fly in the same atmosphere, although at higher altitudes there are usually directional winds that do impact flying times from east to west. During my balloon days at JPL we intentionally flew the balloons during the spring and fall "turnaround" times, when the upper level winds changed directions (these balloons were not small "weather balloons" that are hand launched, but gigantic helium balloons that carried a 2000-3000 lb payload). During the turnaround times, the upper level winds were at a minimum and we got longer flight times within the telemetry range available.

So now even the atmosphere is thick, I mean it's water right?

No ... it's about 78% N2 and 21% O2, with lots of other stuff in smaller concentrations (H2O, Ar, CO2 and many other trace molecules). And what do you mean by "thick"? Atmospheric pressure as a function of altitude is very well understood.

If gravity could pull the moisture to the earth, then hold the waters to this "oblate spheroid" for over 4 billion years, then everything would eventually be pulled in. Do the math, or play with some magnets with different sizes of metal shavings.

"everything would eventually be pulled in"? What does that even mean, and what do magnets and metal shavings have to do with it? That made no sense at all.

The earth spinning is not a proven fact, nor that the earth is an "oblate spheroid.

Both are proven facts ... you just don't seem to want to believe the proof.

Heard of electromagnetism? Rub a air-filled balloon against your hair, now let the water run from your faucet, and slowly put the balloon next to the running water.

See how the electromagnetic balloon pulls the water towards it?

That's something like how the sun is, pulls the moisture towards it. Also the sun has heating effect, and the moon, cooling effect, which in combination with electromagnetism create all these different weather patterns that we have.

What are you smoking, and could I please have a toke?

But those ISS scientists could always go out on a space walk, take a big round rock, squirt water on it and video it as it covers the ball, right?

Wrong. If they tried to squirt water on the ball it would spread out in all directions and quickly vaporize and disperse because there is a near vacuum at that altitude.

Come up with some analogies that actually relate to the thing you are trying to argue against. So far they are all so many orders of magnitude out in scale or relative proportions that they don't even remotely apply (and, of course, don't support your points in any way).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 265 by Trump]

I understand you trying to justify this made up gravity, but come on, 'only' 100 times the mass of the atmosphere? Only? You ever do a belly flop cliff jumping into water?

I was comparing the total mass of the Earth's atmosphere to the total mass of the water in the oceans. What on earth does this have to do with belly flops? Are you talking about the density of water vs. air, which is a completely different thing? You obviously completely missed the point on that one.

Now this magical gravity is holding the mass of 7.35 x 1022 kg which far as I know stayed at the same orbit for over 4 billion years, yet hasn't pulled in the heavy atmosphere

You do realize that the orbit of the moon was once very much closer to the Earth, and the radius of the orbit is increasing at about 3.8 cm per year. This has a significant impact on stabilizing the tilt angle of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of the ecliptic, seasons, etc.. It has not been a stable orbit at the present distance for 4.2 billion years. Not sure what this has to do with your comment that gravity is "made up" though ... another bad analogy or completely missed point.

Look, I know how pseudoscience works, it turns the Earth into a planet with other planets and throws it all around the sun and keeps them there by using pseudo math called quantum physics, mechanics, a body of scientific laws specifically invented for this purpose, which by the way rarely applies to our real Flat Earth.

Really? Why don't you try to explain how the global air transport system works with a flat earth, or the GPS system, or weather patterns, or how the Earth managed not to pull itself into a spherical shape given its mass and density when every other celestial body of similar size, or larger has done this, or I could go on and on. Fortunately you are only rambling on an internet forum and not in any position to teach this utter nonsense to children.

[Bust Nak]

Scientific doctrine? Are you saying the church adapted science into their religious doctrines, into creation itself?

The church? As in Catholics? Sure, they have officially accepted the old Earth and evolution, as well as basic astronomy.

From a Christian perspective, that's amazing, and frightening at the same time. The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, plants, animals and man with His hands, and that the earth stands on pillars with a dome above it, and no Christian ever found that defendable, you know what I mean? I'm including myself since it is only like 8 months ago that I looked into the 'Flat Earth' seriously.

How is that amazing given how ridiculous and hence unpopular the flat Earth thesis is?

NASA supposedly, is about science, not about just what things look like, or imagined to be (stars as planets, trillions of stars as space dust left over from a Big-Bang etc.)

Right, but that doesn't answer my question, you accused NASA for creating cgi when we can actually see what the supposed "cgi" with hobby grade equipment. Why would NASA do that?

They're towers and cables, not satellites in space.

Right, what of it? Are you suggesting that because typical telecommunication use towers and cables, there are no satellites in space?

It would cover more than 2-3 mile areas at a time, but we always did have that problem with radio towers, which today NASA tries to pass off as satellites in space.

Were you under the impression that your cell phone uses satellites to make calls? Satellite phones exists and they are not limited by "2-3 mile areas at a time."

[Trump]

[Replying to post 264 by Trump]

So not pear shaped like Mr. Tyson said? Can you show me an actual photograph of this "oblate spheroid", with the ISS, Hubble, space shuttles and the thousands of satellites floating in space, we should have thousands of them?

There are far more than simply thousands of them. The weather satellites are equipped with ever better cameras that photograph the Earth from space many times a day. The GOES satellite series have been doing this 1975 and there are many others. I expect many millions of photographs are available from all of the earth observing satellites that have been launched to date:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_E ... satellites

The TERRA satellite alone has probably returned millions of photos, and these are available if you take to effort to find them.

I asked for pictures, you give me satellites and an assumption: "The TERRA satellite alone has probably returned millions of photos" I see you did work for NASA.

Please bear with me, let me tell you a little story that just happened a few years ago.
As I mentioned before to you, or others here that most of my family, friends, neighbors and people I know are Catholic, right? So when I seen this on EWTN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L2aqTgReDg

I invited them over to my house, sat them down, and showed them the YouTube version, after which I asked them for their opinion?
Their expression was priceless, for I could never have learned this in school or church;

They all looked at me with a blank stare, we kind of stared at each other, me with anticipation, and they in sort of confusion like what was the point in me showing this, and then the response:

"Yes? And?"

At that moment I've learned something extremely valuable, which after that helped me to better communicate with people. For instance I learned that to try to talk a good loyal, respectable family of Muslims on their way to the doctor out of doing female circumcision, or FGM on their preteen daughter is senseless.
Just as talking to a Catholic about the history of the Catholic Church, or to a NASA scientist who worked at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab from 1985 to 1999 about the photos taken of satellites, the Earth, planets and galaxies from space; senseless.

Just like the Catholic created Big Bang theory, starting with the earth as a globe was always a part of the Catholic Christian Religion (even before Georges Lemaitre).

NASA was created for the sole purpose to proselytize this religious ideology of earth being a spinning globe, a tiny speck in a vacuum of an infinite cold dark void.

The Jesuits very existence was to take control of Jesus teachings (the Bible) and to proselytize their own doctrines. It was all a grand-plan to hide our Creator and His creation from the public. And they did this by creating a religion above all religions, and by slowly but surely taking over science.

Centuries of science observation of what? Of Earth as viewed from outer space?

No ... we haven't been able to take photos of Earth from outer space prior to being able to build craft that can get there with cameras. But as I sent earlier the Earth was known to be spherical since as early as 600 BC from observations made at the time of the phases of the moon, the way distant ships appear mast first from any direction, and probably other observations.

I worked for NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab from 1985 to 1999 as a research scientist. We built balloon-borne and high-altitude aircraft instruments to measure gas concentrations in the upper atmosphere. We put cameras on some of the balloons that got to 110,000 feet or higher. This is plenty high enough to see the curvature of the Earth. I'll see if I can dig up an actual photo from one of these flights that was taken with my own camera, but it looked pretty much just like this one:

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-students- ... itude.html

This has been done countless times. The Earth is not flat.

A high altitude photo of our flat earth using a fisheye lens. Look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHtvDA0W34I
time 0:50 look at the curvature of the Earth at 128,100 feet!

Now look at the curvature from the ISS at 1,310,000 feet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc

That's 1,181,900 feet higher, yet the curvature is far less curved.

NASA is very compartmentalized, they keep everyone from seeing the Big Picture. I don't blame you for thinking and believing as you do, just as I don't blame Muslims, or Hindus, or us Christians thinking the way we have been thinking, it is how we been thought, or programmed to think.

The Earth is flat, please help us keep it that way.

to be continued, hopefully.