- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Miia,
Paul expressed similar concerns in Gal4.19
We are told to be as little children to enter the kingdom.
Then advised to be as gentle as doves and as cunning as serpents.
Yes Nick (but that was Jesus who said to become like children, and Paul who said the dove and serpent statement, but you probably meant that).
My investigation into the Flat Earth has not be thorough so far
Hi Mike.
I know I haven’t attempted to debunk much of what you have posted up and have concentrated more on posting debunking videos from other people. You have given calculations etc, and I haven’t even tried to debunk that. The main reason is time. These things take time, perhaps too much time than I have. It is easier for now to just post up a video I watched or to give you my 2 cents worth in general. That said, I have watched some of the videos you have posted and others too. Just watched this one.
So, while I believe the idea of a Flat Earth is preposterous, I certainly am going to test it because I believe in testing all things especially those things that have an impact on scripture and reality.
This is where I am with the Flat Earth theory now
Mike. I think I have a good understanding of the Flat Earth now and how the theory works. It certainly has most people’s rebuttals and misconceptions answered and yes a lot of the evidence such as flight paths not taking the shortest routes etc. Just quickly as you probably have heard before, it does make sense to me that the Southern Hemisphere is lightly populated compared to the north and demand for direct flights to many destinations in the south are not that common. Planes head to other destinations further north in order to fill up the planes because small destinations flying to and fro from big ones have a good chance of filling up the planes. Just to give you an example, I once bought a bus ticket from Perth to Darwin that was open for 6 months. On that trip, I took a bus from the main Western Highway to a peninsula called Exmouth. It was the first tourist bus to ever travel here and I and my girlfriend were the only people on the bus. Seems strange that they would run this route, but the reality is they make money on some routes and not others, but need bragging rights on covering all destinations. Of course buses don’t work like planes, but I am willing to bet that if a bus could somehow in a short amount of time go to Singapore and fill up the bus with passengers they would, even though it is far away. Planes have this option and take full advantage of it.
What I am trying to say in this post overall, is that there is an explanation for everything I bet, although it is uncanny that all these things seem to have conspired to make the Flat Earth theory possible and to make people suspicious of the heliocentric model at least, but that is not enough for me to entertain the idea at this stage. But certainly am looking into it for the purpose of disproving the Flat Earth theory. And that is not a bad thing because if it is a true theory, then I will likely find out. Actually what led me to God was my own attempt in disproving him, so I read books about God etc and was swayed by the evidence. So please understand that I am not an ignoramus who has made his mind up and nothing will sway me. Hell no, not me.
The Matrix
If we live in a Matrix and we understand the possible implications of the famous Double Slit Experiment, then it is acceptable that both flat and round are true because reality is based on the observer’s position. Imagine for a moment that you created a virtual world in cyberSpace. You want it to look like Earth and Space. When you walk around, you program the virtual world to look flat right? When you travel in space or away from the Earth, you program the world to look like a sphere in space. But if you travel toward the speed of light, then things would look different again. If reality or the physical realm is merely perception and a picture created in the brain, then we are all at the mercy of how we interpret the signals we receive in our senses and how the brain converts the received spectrum into electromagnetic waves for the brain to decode. What am I saying. When we stand on earth, the brain decodes a flat earth experience. If we travel in space, we would experience a globe earth as we pull away from it. Similarly, if you look at the stars, you see them in random positions and if you pull away from the galaxy, then it becomes a spiral city of stars.
Mike, if I met you in real life, you would look like a human right? I hope. But if I only saw through a microscope, the world presented to me could be atoms and I might not be able to detect you beyond other atoms that may be around. If I am blind, then the Earth is not flat or round, but physical to touch.
We are all at the mercy of our position, perspective, and body. Just like a virtual reality set that beams a world to you that you can interact with, so it is with reality. The body is the VR suit and it gives us access to a very small part of an almost infinite or infinite spectrum. What are we not seeing or experiencing then? Angels, the throne of God, River of Life, etc.
The Earth is flat in one perspective and round in another. Saying it is not round doesn’t mean that some are not experiencing that. Most will in fact not detect that, but we have math, telescopes, and other ways to detect realities beyond our very narrow view of the universe.
The Antarctica
Mike, while you live in the USA, you are probably more aware of Alaska than I am. While you may or may not have been there, you certainly have read about it and seen it on TV and seen photos of it on the Internet. But there is the chance that you have been there in person. I doubt that you doubt its existence right?
I live in New Zealand and we have territory in the Antarctica as do other countries like Chile and Australia. These territories may not be recognised by the USA, but they are recognised by other countries like the UK. New Zealand’s portion of the frozen continent is called The Ross Dependency. We have a lot of history with this continent with many countrymen visiting including scientists, explorers, famous personalities, and ordinary Kiwis. In fact, the frozen continent is just below us with no land mass in between. When the wind comes from the South in Wellington where I live, it is very cold because it is water between my city and that continent. New Zealand also owns a bunch of islands between our main islands and the frozen continent, called the SubAntarctic islands. As such there is much interaction between my country and Antarctica that makes it extremely unlikely that this continent is fake. Air New Zealand even ran flights over the continent and a plane even crashed there sending investigators and rescuers to the frozen continent. See the video I posted early in this discussion.
My point is this, while Antarctica may feel like a place where no one is allowed to visit, that doesn’t make sense to us here in New Zealand.
Explain how all this is fake. Are my photos of the Antarctic wing at Christchurch airport that I posted here also fake or photos of a staged Antarctic service? Was Sir Edmund Hillary the first man to climb Mount Everest a fake because he also explored the Antarctica. Are thousands of passengers all lying about flying over the frozen continent when Air New Zealand had flights there? Are New Zealand politicians who have visited all liars including past leaders of our country?
Let’s face it, if I can prove the Antarctica is a frozen continent, then the Flat Earth falls flat on its face right? The Flat Earth theory needs Antarctica to not be a continent, rather a sort of fence or barrier that circles a disk. So explain these videos. Are they all fake?
And what of the ancient mysterious maps that have mapped the Antarctica? Even in antiquity someone mapped that continent, but it remains a mystery today.
Is the conspiracy really this elaborate?
We could discover if the Antarctica is real or not by booking a flight there:
http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
http://www.traveller.com.au/flight-to-antarctica-what-its-like-to-fly-over-the-frozen-continent-gqwdtt
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/themes/adventure/99401831/antarctica-sightseeing-flights-from-australia-qantas-jumbos-cool-day-tripSeriously, if you took a flight over the frozen continent, would you believe that Antarctica was a closed continent such as we see on the globe?
miia: Woah Mike, your son is 17 already? My youngest is 13 now.
Yeah, time really flies, huh? I’ve been very blessed to have a straight A student who doesn’t get into any of the many kinds of trouble I got into as a teenager. I pray it stays that way. I’ve been very open with him about my many mistakes, and how my biggest one was turning away from God at a young age. He knows that God is real and that big bang evolution is a laughable sham. He’s not 100% with me on the flat earth yet, but says it’s because they haven’t taught him anything about cosmology in school, and so he doesn’t even fully understand the claims and motions in the heliocentric model enough to know whether they’re right or wrong. And I think it’s fantastic that he isn’t just some blind believer of anything Daddy says. We spent years talking about the evolution model he was learning in school, and he put me to the test with some very good questions about the things I was claiming. Iron sharpens iron, and he is a great sharpener. 🙂 He’s doing the same with flat earth, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I could be wrong, after all.
miia: But that is a good question. Why can we see the moon in the daytime. Isn’t it supposed to be on the other side of the globe by then.
The moon doesn’t have to be on the other side according to the heliocentric model, but it does have to be lit by the sun, since it is just a dark rock in the sky that gives off no light of its own. The problem is that the sun is supposed to be 93 million miles away while the moon is only 238,000 miles away. That places the moon BETWEEN the earth and the sun. So if the sun is up in the sky (way behind the moon), how can the part of the moon that is facing us be lit up? The sun’s light should be lighting up the back side of the moon – the part that we can’t see. The part that is facing us should be in shadow because the sun is behind it, lighting the other side of it.
After dinner last night, my son and I did a little experiment with a couple of soccer balls and an outdoor pole light at his apartment complex. We were trying all kinds of ways to have the moon (one soccer ball) be between the light (the sun) and the earth (the other soccer ball) and still have the side facing the earth be lit up. We were unsuccessful no matter how we moved the balls around. Then we tried all kinds of ways to have the earth eclipse the moon from the top down, like what happened in the Jan 31, 2018 red moon eclipse. We weren’t able to get that to work either, despite trying all kinds of positions and angles. It doesn’t mean our results are conclusive, as there may be an option we didn’t even consider. But we couldn’t make either thing work.
Nick: Hi Mike,
Yes this might be fertile ground to plant your seeds.
Believers are a special breed and can be naive and just like children,
till the Spirit of Christ becomes their teacher and they learn to ignore the voice of strangers.
Then it’s a good thing I’m no stranger here, and have already planted many seeds on this site that have produced good fruit. 🙂
T8: I know I haven’t attempted to debunk much of what you have posted up and have concentrated more on posting debunking videos from other people. You have given calculations etc, and I haven’t even tried to debunk that. The main reason is time. These things take time, perhaps too much time than I have.
You’re preachin’ to the choir about time, brother. Don’t worry, after today the rest of my stuff will be just short and simple points for you guys to consider. But I felt it necessary to take ample time to lay the ground work of what the Israelites (and other cultures of the day) believed, and how the very recent heliocentric model came into play in the first place.
If you watched the first video I posted about how I came to look into the flat earth, you’ll remember I sent a funny clip to a friend, who then suggested I read an ebook. Well that friend has signed up for this forum under the name Dig4truth, and is awaiting your approval. Please be so kind as to expedite this matter, so he can help me beat up on Nick. 🙂 Actually, he’s not as convinced as I am, and it could backfire on me. But I vouch for him. He and I were brothers in arms against the evolutionist horde on that other forum.
T8: Mike. I think I have a good understanding of the Flat Earth now and how the theory works. It certainly has most people’s rebuttals and misconceptions answered and yes a lot of the evidence such as flight paths not taking the shortest routes etc.
I suggest you are looking at it the wrong way. It isn’t the flat earth model who is the newcomer that has to rebut the heliocentric claims – although, as you said, that is easily done. Rather, it is the heliocentric model who is the newcomer that didn’t debunk a single flat earth claim until we started being shown images from space in the 1970’s.
T8: …it is uncanny that all these things seem to have conspired to make the Flat Earth theory possible and to make people suspicious of the heliocentric model at least…
Again, you’re looking at it backwards. The flat earth model is all there was until 475 years ago, when men, trying to displace the earth from the center of God’s creation, began conspiring to mathematically concoct a world that has no basis in reality. In doing so, they caused the masses to become suspicious of their own lifelong observations that they live on a flat, stationary plane with lights in the sky that move around them on appointed circuits.
T8: But certainly am looking into it for the purpose of disproving the Flat Earth theory.
That’s how Dave Weiss, Rob Skiba, and a bunch of other prominent flat earthers became flat earthers, so be careful. 🙂 Rob was a Christian beforehand, but Dave was an evolution-believing atheist who hated “God-people” and thought they were all idiots. In his effort to disprove the silly flat earth theory he has become, not only one of our best investigators and spokesmen, but a person who now believes in an intelligent designer. But you can hear him tell his own story. I just clipped an interview down to 2 minutes of his testimonial about how trying to disprove the flat earth led him to belief in an intelligent designer. Please give it a watch…
T8: Actually what led me to God was my own attempt in disproving him, so I read books about God etc and was swayed by the evidence. So please understand that I am not an ignoramus who has made his mind up and nothing will sway me. Hell no, not me.
In that case, you better just walk away now. Scratch that… run for dear life! 🙂
Hi Mike,
This ICE WALL that surrounds the earth must be a remarkable structure.
Just show it and you may gain more believers.
T8: Seriously, if you took a flight over the frozen continent, would you believe that Antarctica was a closed continent such as we see on the globe?
Not necessarily. But Antarctica is another huge topic in and of itself. It is the subject of hundreds of documentaries and YouTube videos by very intelligent independent researchers who have spent years looking into it. Let’s put that on the back burner for a while for these reasons: If seeing a full moon in the daytime really does dismantle the heliocentric model, then Antarctica becomes a minor side issue. If visibly observing objects in the distance that would be impossible to see on a ball earth really does kill the heliocentric model, Antarctica isn’t going to save it – even if it is a continent. If any of the hundreds of other points I’m about to bring up truly and utterly refute the very possibility of the heliocentric model, then Antarctica becomes an interesting discussion, but a moot point.
Nick: Hi Mike,
This ICE WALL that surrounds the earth must be a remarkable structure.
Just show it and you may gain more believers.
I’m sorry, I’ve been having a hard time concentrating on anything you say due to being so pumped up for your explanation of how we can see a full moon in the daytime.
Try to understand this, Nick: The heliocentric model is a house of cards – carefully put together by mathematical equations that none of us regular people can even understand – let alone verify. But if someone were able to pull just one card out of the house, the entire thing crashes down. For example, if it is impossible for the sun to be lighting the earth side of the moon during the daytime, then the sun is not what’s lighting the moon after all. And if the sun isn’t lighting the moon, then the moon is its own light source, as the Bible clearly implies. And if that is the case, everything NASA has told us about the moon – including men setting foot on it – is a bald face lie. And that would call into question EVERYTHING that NASA has ever told us about this mathematical universe that none of us have the means to verify on our own. And without the NASA stories and images, is there anything else upon which to hang the entire heliocentric model?
I just wanted you to be aware of the situation. Because this thing doesn’t hinge on me being able to take you up to the edge of the firmament in my private rocket to show you an ice wall surrounding the oceans and continents. It can come crashing down without either of us ever going high enough to visibly observe this ice wall. Do you understand that?
Hi Mike,
Yes the wall has fallen down and your house of cards tumbled with it.
So back to the kingdom.
Fallen down? It has? Show me. Or better yet, just remain silent until the discussion comes to a point at which you can speak from knowledge instead of ignorant snark.
Hi Mike,
This ICE WALL surrounding the earth is unstable and come crashing down?
Curiouser and curiouser.
MIKE….CAN YOU EVEN STATE THE pythagoream theorem, “the square of the hypotenous of a right trangle equals to the sum of the squares of the oppsite two sides”, or side A squared plus B squared = C squard (eight grade math) and it apsolutly does work on a circle even if you use it from the outside as i did or from the inside as they did, it works the exact same way. You have not proved this wrong, as you are claiming. Nor have you disproved that a ship going straight out from a person does not sink over the horizion in porporition to that math.
I will stand behind the mathematics I used from the outside of the circle as well as the math they used from the inside of it.
And again, you haven’t produced a single proof of “any” conspiracy theory nor any reason for it at all, not even one, saying that people long ago thought the world was flat and they were right is foolishness, they had only their eyes to see it with, so it looked flat to them, but no one has ever proved the world was flat, not then nor now. To think men have not been to out space and to the moon back, and there is a big picture and movie cover up, for reasons no one knows, is pure foolishness.
This whole subject is just a waste of time, Those who have the spirit of truth in them would never fall for a flat earth LIE, WITH SUCH EVIDENCE NOW AVAILABLE AGAINST IT. IMO
peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
Okay, so the experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” is only known by that name because it failed to demonstrate the motion of the earth. And in doing so, it confirmed that the earth is stationary, with stars moving over us. Then came the Michelson-Morley experiments of the late 19th century. These scientists used a contraption to simultaneously bounce light in the direction of the earth’s rotation and at 90 degrees from it, in order to measure the speed at which the earth moves around the sun in the ether. But this was also a failure (from a heliocentric viewpoint), and ended up showing a stationary earth just like Airy’s experiment had done. But what’s interesting about Michelson-Morley is that it occurred during the great days of Albert Einstein, and prompted his Theory of Relativity to save the heliocentric model that had been crushed by Airy and Michelson. Here it is in a nutshell, from “Albert Einstein: Earth Mover” ( http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Albert-Einstein-The-Earth-Mover.pdf )…
In his 1881 and 1887 experiments, Albert Michelson discovered the Earth was not moving
around the sun. As Michelson himself described the results of his own experiment: “This
conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth
moves.”1 But since his colleagues, including Albert Einstein, were die‐hard Copernicans
who didn’t want to believe that Michelson had discovered a motionless Earth, they
proposed his experimental apparatus was distorted by the Earth’s motion through space
and thus Michelson’s apparatus only made it appear as if it wasn’t moving. In scientific
parlance, we call this the fallacy of petitio principii, that is, using as proof (a moving Earth)
the very thing one is trying to prove (a moving Earth).Many other scientists of the day agreed with Michelson that his results contradicted a moving earth…
“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to
have been nil.” – Physicist, Arthur Eddington“The data [of Michelson‐Morley] were almost unbelievable… There was only one other
possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” – Physicist, Bernard Jaffe“Thus, failure [of Michelson‐Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times
of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’
frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the
Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?” – Physicist, Adolph Baker“….The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything
else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether….Such an idea was not
considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent
position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving
around it.” – Physicist, James Coleman“The Michelson‐Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing
alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so
many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the
ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in
motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still
than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to
sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter
century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried
again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the
earth through the ether was zero.” – Historian, Lincoln Barnett“What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any
orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no
fringe shift; nothing. What’s the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to
measure the speed of the earth’s motion through the ether. This was an experiment thatwas ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as
two miles a second instead of the known 20mps that the earth as in its orbital motion
around the sun. It didn’t detect it. What’s the conclusion from the Michelson‐Morley
experiment? The implication is that the earth is not moving…” – Physicist, Richard Wolfson“This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth
century. One possibility was that…v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected.
But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the
earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is
tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe.” – Physicist, Douglas C. GiancoliDid you notice from some of these comments that the earth being the center of our world is something these guys very much wanted to avoid? This was central to the so-called “Enlightenment Period”. It was then that Charles Lyell proposed his theory of uniformitarianism to invent a world millions or billions of years old. He said his goal was to “free the science of geology from Moses”. And then Charles Darwin with his Theory of Evolution – to show that we all could have evolved accidentally, with no need of a God or Divine Creator. I point this out to those of you who, like Nick, have the utterly mistaken idea that scientists are impartial observers, only relaying the scientific evidence for what it is. Nothing could be further from the truth, as they are extremely biased and flawed human beings, and bend over backwards to make sure the empirical observations align with the worldview they’ve already decided upon.
So while the evidence might be a rock, the interpretation is that this rock is billions of years old, and therefore the Bible is blatantly wrong. And while the evidence is a fossil of an ape-like creature, the interpretation is that this creature was in the process of evolving from a lessor ape into mankind, and therefore the Bible is blatantly wrong. And while the evidence derived from the experiment is that the earth is motionless, the interpretation is that the experiment must be flawed somehow, because the Bible is blatantly wrong and there is no way the earth could be the center of everything.
Are you getting the idea, Nick? I could lists quotes like the above until the cows come home. Old quotes, new quotes. These scientists all want the same thing: God and the Bible are silly myths, and they are now the Priests of this world, able to tell us what is and is not, and expecting us to worship them and take their every word to heart as absolute truth. In fact, I’ll end this segment with a 1988 quote from cosmologist George Ellis…
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” […] “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” […] “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Okay, just one more from 2017, by God-hating Lawrence Krauss – the guy who says forget about Jesus, the stars died for us…
But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.
Can you sense the fear and utter dread that these guys have of the earth being the center of everything – as if it’s been specially created to be that way? The mere thought of it sends shivers down their spines. How much more so would the realization that we live here?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
