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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 269 by Trump]

I forget the immense number of arguments that prove the Earth is a spheroid, but my contribution was:
Mercator's maps would only be useful if the Earth was round.

Sailors use Mercator's maps successfully, the Earth can only be round...

QED.

Are you going to deny Mercator's map work?
Are you going to deny that they are used to navigate the Earth on the assumption it is round?

What does one see if you launch a rocket above a flat Earth?

[Trump]

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

Pure nonsense not even worthy of a comment.

Please watch these;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrWVDtQgf28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFd-ttWUmJ4

[benchwarmer]

Since we seem to have a flat earther in our midst (welcome) I thought I would pose a bit of a side question. Bear with me to the end as this is potentially on topic.

Trump, are you a Christian flat earther or just a 'general non denominational' flat earther? If you are a Christian, do you believe in the flood tales from Genesis in the Bible?

If so, how do you reconcile these beliefs? If not, please forgive my intrusion into the discussion.

It seems to me that if one tried to believe both, one would have to explain how all the water didn't simply pour off the edge rendering a 'flood to the mountain tops' impossible.

In closing, hopefully more on topic regardless of your particular religious affiliation: If the earth is indeed flat, where exactly is the edge? In other words, which people of which nation should be careful not to fall off the side while walking about (or perhaps while out fishing)?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 269 by Trump]

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


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



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

Another erroneous comparison, but you said it yourself in the first sentence above! A fisheye lens of course will produce more curvature in an image than a normal lens:

A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image. Fisheye lenses achieve extremely wide angles of view by forgoing producing images with straight lines of perspective (rectilinear images), opting instead for a special mapping (for example: equisolid angle), which gives images a characteristic convex non-rectilinear appearance.

These analogies you are producing are just too simple to shoot down. What you need to do is come up with something that supports a flat Earth that isn't grossly misproportioned (eg. the toy airplane and globe), or orders of magnitude out in terms of physical size and relative component proportions (eg. the wet spinning tennis ball) and offer up some evidence that relates to the actual problem at hand. But if you are confused by a simple fisheye lens image I'm not sure how you can do that.

The one question I'd like to see a flat earther respond to is how the Earth managed to not pull itself into a spherical shape given its mass and average density, when every other celestial body we've seen does this when it reaches a certain mass. What is special about the Earth that it would take a pancake shape (how thick is your flat Earth by the way) instead? I'll await a YouTube video explaining that one.

[Neatras]

My challenge is to find any flat earther that has piloted an aircraft over any ocean. If the planet is flat, they'd follow a beeline. But every pilot over oceans/continents knows to follow the geodesic. If a flat earther ever tried to fly from New York to London, they'd end up hundreds of miles away from their target due to the fact that straight paths on a globe are not the same as drawing a line on a map projection.

Or is the fact that there are no flat earth transcontinental pilots just another piece of fuel for the conspiracy?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 274 by Neatras]

My challenge is to find any flat earther that has piloted an aircraft over any ocean. If the planet is flat, they'd follow a beeline.

Yes ... a great circle route from Boston to London would be hard to fathom for a flat earther, but they aren't paying the fuel costs! I'd like to see a 3D rendering of what these people think the pancake's dimensions are, and how they reconcile that with the known distances between the great cities of the world. Can they fly from Hong Kong to LA by taking a shortcut around the edge of the pancake? Lots of money to be made with this idea ... if only it wasn't complete bunk.

Trump, can you show us a 3D view of the flat Earth .... ie. a "globe" but modified for what a flat earther thinks it looks like? Surely someone from that group has created such a "flat earth globe", along with accurate dimensions.

[Bust Nak]

My challenge is to find any flat earther that has piloted an aircraft over any ocean. If the planet is flat, they'd follow a beeline. But every pilot over oceans/continents knows to follow the geodesic.

The problem here is, a geodesic looks like a beeline from the cockpit of an aircraft, it is only when you plot your location back onto a flat map would you see a curve. Flat Earthers like to go by what they can see with their mark I eye ball and distrust data.

Or is the fact that there are no flat earth transcontinental pilots just another piece of fuel for the conspiracy?

A flat Earther told me that pilots just don't know any better, they are just following their instruments.

[Trump]

[Replying to post 264 by Trump] 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.[/quote]

Don't forget the fluffy clouds, and water vapors going up to the absolute vacuum of space which this gravity thing is unable to hold down? And the Vacuum of infinite space is unable to suck out? We have a problem here Huston!

Here is a little toy vacuum, yet look what happens to the balloon? Now imagine a tiny speck like your Globe Earth in the real vacuum of infinite space, thousands of times stronger than what we can achieve here on earth (or so says NASA)

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

The tennis ball doesn't have enough gravity to hold the massive amount of water to its surface.

Massive water? You are talking about mass here, you know, that creates your magical gravity.
The ball, and the water both = mass. So why wouldn't mass hold on to mass in space?

Tell us how all the NASA planets were created after the Big Bang?
Did the Big Bang create giant sized rocks with smaller and smaller rocks which the gravity of the giant rocks sucked to itself over billions of years?

Or

Was it gas? You know very well it was gas. So if the gas had enough gravity to attract and pull in other gas till it became a rock the size of the earth, why can't the tennis ball keep the water on it?

Remember you doing the math trying to justify how heavy atmosphere is, that it can carry helicopters and giant planes at a thousand miles per hour? Well the tennis ball and the water on it is much, much heavier than air, especially in the upper atmosphere.

Now what is stronger, a vacuum, or your gravity?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzBGcxBEl78

And this crane-vacuum isn't near the power of the vacuum of your space. Now tell us how your gravity can hold the "relatively small amount of water" that's on a tiny speck of rock in an infinite vacuum again?

It's like your toy airplane and globe analogy earlier ... you are orders of magnitude out on the comparisons.

What, me? Who invented a quantum speck that exploded, and had enough mass/gravity to draw other gas to itself to create the trillions of stars and planets in an entire universe, that are much, much bigger/heavier than earth? Buddy that story is infinite orders of magnitude out of any comparison.

The toy plane over your globe is a perfect example of perspective; The higher you move the little toy plane, the less you see of your Globe.

Now go outside and look out into the horizon over the ocean. Now glance up at the dome, what do you see?
You clearly see a once beautiful deep blue dome over a flat plain.

What you don't see is the round ball earth to accommodate the dome, which we WOULD if the earth was a ball.

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.

I've shown you in the video above what a vacuum can hold, tons, easily. I have worked with vacuum clamps, I know how strong they are.
So you are trying to convince us that this gravity that can't even pull a kite that's floating in air down to earth, is stronger than the vacuum of space?

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

The entire earths atmosphere would boil, then freeze in seconds if there was this vacuum of space, and you know it.

Look, I don't want to embarrass you any longer, just stick to your NASA artist rendered pictures, CGI images, 3D cartoons of earth and paintings of science fiction imaginary habitable planets that are far, far away!

I mean why risk it now, if the paintings and cartoons worked for NASA for 60 years, why would you want to ruin it all by arguing with a Flat Earther?

To prove that gravity is real, do like Neil deGrasse Tyson the astrophysicist, drop your microphone and watch people cheer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p67enALmLkU

You keep ignoring what I say, the questions I asked you, you distort or ignore also. You show me CGI images, or artist rendered pictures and ask me how I know they are CGI and artist rendered pictures?

It's like if I shown you a picture of an apple, then demand you to tell me how you know it's a picture of an apple and threaten you with breaking Forum rules, Really?

[Willum]

Hi Trump,
Mercator's Maps. They can only be accurate if the Earth is round.
They are used and accurate.

Bye flat Earth.

[Trump]

[Replying to post 269 by Trump]

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


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



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

Another erroneous comparison, but you said it yourself in the first sentence above! A fisheye lens of course will produce more curvature in an image than a normal lens:

A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image. Fisheye lenses achieve extremely wide angles of view by forgoing producing images with straight lines of perspective (rectilinear images), opting instead for a special mapping (for example: equisolid angle), which gives images a characteristic convex non-rectilinear appearance.

You just explained what NASA uses when taking off with a rocket, before they cut-off to the CGI 3-D cartoon mode.

These analogies you are producing are just too simple to shoot down. What you need to do is come up with something that supports a flat Earth that isn't grossly misproportioned (eg. the toy airplane and globe),

Why do people laugh when a famous Scientist, Astrophysicist, quantum theorist, President of the United Sates etc. mentions flat earth?

It looks flat, so why not say to a student who asks; why does the earth look flat? "Hmm, good question young student, why do you think it is flat? Is it just because it looks flat?
Well you see son, the earth is very, very, very, very big, so just because it looks flat, doesn't mean it is flat.
Now young student, look up into the sky, do you see that curvature? Well there you go, it looks curved right? That's because the earth is pear shaped you see, and from space it is a sphere, a ball, that's what you see when you look up to the sky, the curvature of the earth.

Ok young man, now let's go over this one more time, say it after me: "just because something looks flat, it doesn't mean it is! And if you see the curvature of the sky, well that's because the earth is a globe, just as the globe in your science classroom."
Now you may at some point have gazed over the ocean, scanning from your far right, all the way to your far left, and you swear it looks perfectly flat, matter of fact, you can take a nice 20 foot straight 6X6 beam, put it on two stands and level it out. Now go back till you see the beam raise to the horizon, and level with the ocean, what do you see? Again you'll see it's perfectly flat, right? But what did we learn just a while ago? That's right: "Just because something looks flat, even if you make an experiment and still looks flat, and even if everyone you ask says it looks flat, does not mean it is flat."

Like my globe and toy plane experiment, you're using the old Jesuit programming guide, where you are to belittle, humiliate, bash, laugh at any truth that opposes the Big Lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

You know that besides the obvious (no measurable 8" drop every mile squared), this little experiment is the next best mind opener and another absolute proof that the earth is flat. The higher you go, the less of the globe you would see, and since just about EVERYONE has flown in a plane, this clicks the fastest. So like a little kindergarten bully, you keep bringing it up all the time, till you hope that everyone will just start laughing at it.

Now let's see how you respond to the next 'absolute proof' that the earth is flat?

or orders of magnitude out in terms of physical size and relative component proportions (eg. the wet spinning tennis ball) and offer up some evidence that relates to the actual problem at hand. But if you are confused by a simple fisheye lens image I'm not sure how you can do that.

OK, great. The next absolute proof against the earth being a globe is the wet tennis ball in a spin, and .. oh yes, the good ol fisheye lens, without which NASA would have to stop putting cameras on their rockets, which would leave them with the outside footage where every rocket turns as it nears the dome. This would not be good since too many fishing boats and cruse ships have recorded them falling into the ocean.

The one question I'd like to see a flat earther respond to is how the Earth managed to not pull itself into a spherical shape given its mass and average density, when every other celestial body we've seen does this when it reaches a certain mass. What is special about the Earth that it would take a pancake shape (how thick is your flat Earth by the way) instead? I'll await a YouTube video explaining that one.

Ah yes, Jesuit rule book number 33-666, talk about the Big Banged universe mentioning and claiming stars as planets reaching a certain mass as if space was real, and NASA scientists have actually observed this? I love this video, it sums up what I've been saying all along:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-kUH942awQ

time 0:55 "I mean, it looks good", after over 500 billion dollars, having landed on Mars, a picture of a Rover in the desert somewhere in Greenland is their proof!

I mean just listen to these jokers?