- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8: Mike, the Antarctica is the easiest one to debate because of its myriad of evidence and it is not a side issue IMO because if it is a continent, then the Flat Earth model falls out the window.
I disagree…
There, I’ve just added your continent to the flat earth. Who among us on this site would truly know the difference? Anyway, check out that Admiral Byrd video and let me know what you think.
T8: I would like to start with boats coming into view or away from the observer when approaching the horizon. The point about it not going over the curve as much as it going out of view seems a fair one to me. Of course that doesn’t prove that it will eventually go over the curve. What happens when the boat disappears when viewed through binoculars? You would have to say that it is out of view of the binoculars right. So the remedy is to have a more powerful pair of binoculars or a capable telescope. So let’s say we did that and again it disappeared and so again we looked through an even more powerful lense. Let’s say we kept doing this or let’s just say we have a device that was capable of viewing say a distance further than the distance between Alaska and New Zealand of which there is only sea thus a clear line of sight between the two. The inescapable conclusion is you would not only see the boat land at the coast of Alaska from New Zealand, but you would see Alaska right. Surely this is a test that many could do. You only need a boat, a very powerful telescope, and away you go. But no one has demonstrated this or demonstrated something similar to this.
We can’t see forever through air. Between perspective, our eyes’ limits, and the water vapor in the air, we can only see so far. But the point is that a 6 foot tall boat should disappear over the curve at only 3 miles – yet we can zoom them back in for 20 miles. Our eyes can only see down to .02 of a degree. After that, it will not register. Plus you have to consider perspective that makes things appear smaller as they get farther away from us. And you have to consider the haze that occurs from the air we’re looking through. At some point, a mountain or a cloud will just turn into blue sky as we’re watching it get farther away from us.
T8: …if the boat is still there once you produce a powerful lense, then what of the sun? When that appears to go below the horizon, then why can’t we just pull out a telescope and see the sun again?
Yep.
T8: This is something I can do for myself and am in a perfect situation to do it. Although, I have to admit that I have only ever seen the moon ascend from the horizon, but the experiment could still be done. The telescope would show the moon before just viewing the same scene with the naked eye.
I just invested in a Nikon P900. It has an 83x optical zoom, and then a digital zoom on top of that. It’s almost like having a small hand-held telescope. They’re about $500 American. You are correct that you live in a perfect place to do some of these kinds of distance experiments. I suggest you buy one of those cameras (and a good, steady tripod), and get to investigating. 🙂
Here’s a video of the moon I did a couple of days ago. You can just watch 10 seconds to get the idea. But that was not even the full optical zoom… or the moon would be cut off on the sides. If you use the digital zoom on top of full optical, you can zero in on those things we’ve been told are craters. 🙂
T8: So here is a question Mike.
If I go to the coast and the sun or moon is going down below the horizon, if I then pull out my telescope, I should be able to see the sun / moon again after it has disappeared right?
Yes sir. The same with clouds that are “setting” over the horizon in the distance. You can zoom them right back up off the ground again. And if there’s not too much moisture in the air, the sun won’t magnify as it’s “setting” (really just moving farther away from you). In those dry air cases, you can see it getting smaller as it moves away from you across the sky – as this one minute video shows…
Ok, a brief explanation of why I take the plane earth seriously.
*The measurements of distances of what should and should not be visable are testable and repeatable and they do not coincide with a sphere with the circumference of what our earth is said to be.
*Water always seeks a level. It always conforms to the inside of a container, never to the outside of a container which would be required if the earth were a sphere.
*If a pressurized atmosphere (earth’s) is exposed to a vacuum it would attain to a state of equilibrium. It has not.
*Testable and repeatable experiments have been performed that demonstrate the earth is not moving.
*The biblical narrative substantiates that the above points are true.
Dig: Hey Mike, what a wild question in this vast vacuum of space, “where should we go next”?
Hmm, I couldn’t venture to say.
Lol. I think the absurd idea that we live in a pressurized “atmosphere” adjacent to the most powerful vacuum known to man – with no boundary separating the two – is a great place to go next. 🙂
Anyone out there have an idea how a pressurized system can remain pressurized abutted to a vastly powerful vacuum?
Mike, that shrinking sun video blew me away! I’ve seen several others but that one is just crazy obvious!
Many globalists will say that this topic just sucks.
But to answer your question I really don’t have any idea how a pressurized atmosphere could stay pressurized when adjacent to the vast vacuum of space.
Oh wait, unless there is a firmament or dome placed over it. But other than that – nope!
T8: This is just me thinking out loud of course, but I further want to add that maybe aurora’s rely on the curvature of the Earth. Charged particles are blown by solar wind toward the upper atmosphere and ionization emits light of varying color.
That’s the story we’ve been told. How can you personally verify it?
T8: But this light display must also be bouncing back down to us in order for us to see it. So, is it not possible that we could actually see things beyond the horizon given the right conditions? After all, we can see auroras and we can receive UHF from behind hills. So does light become immediately invisible if it is over the horizon or can we see just beyond it sometimes due to distortion or the right conditions?
Light clearly refracts. But as the video Dig4truth posted points out, it refracts down towards the more dense medium. And no experiment has ever shown that something clearly over the horizon or a hill or whatever can be seen from someone on the other side due to refraction. That’s the gist of the Mick West Metabunk calculator. He uses the same formula everyone else does (the ONLY formula, since we can’t have arbitrary formulas for things like pi, right? 🙂 ), but then the bottom half of his calculator tries to take most of that hidden height away by claiming “standard refraction”. But refraction is anything but “standard” – as you can clearly see on this video. It’s 4 minutes, but you need only watch 30 seconds to get the idea…
So when that Chicago skyline picture started getting a lot of chatter about how it would be impossible to see from that far, the elites had to do something about it…
The meteorologist claims what we’re seeing is a mirage, because it would be impossible to see Chicago from ground level in Michigan (you know, because 8 inches per mile squared 🙂 ). But first of all, where is his empirical scientific evidence that it is only a mirage? The only reason he claims it is a mirage is that on his ball earth model, we couldn’t possibly be seeing what we are seeing. There is no experiment he’s done to verify it is indeed a mirage, right? But in that video Dig posted, you’ll see a real person doing a real experiment to verify it isn’t a mirage after all. He starts from Michigan in a boat, and keeps the skyline in view while he sails across the lake to Chicago – proving that what he was seeing from Michigan was the same Chicago he was seeing when he got there. And look at the graphics the meteorologist uses, showing a superior mirage on a sailboat. Notice how the real sailboat is right side up on the water, while the mirage is upside down above it? Now compare the refraction in that Skunk Bay Weather Cam video I posted above with the clarity with which we see Chicago in Joshua Nowicki’s photo. Or check out this photo of what a superior mirage of Chicago really looks like…
Notice how there is a right side up building on the water, and then an upside down version right above it? Here’s one of some boats…
Notice again that you have the real boat right side up, with a mirror image of it upside down above it? Now, does that original image of Chicago look like that? Besides, hundreds of people have posted similar images of Chicago from Michigan that exhibit no signs of being mirages. And finally, let me point out that in each case a mirage is happening due to refraction, you can always see the original object too. In other words, the real object can’t be hidden behind a mountain or whatever, while you’re seeing only the mirage. In every case I know of, the mirage is always above the actual object – which is itself clearly visible when it should be hidden behind curvature.
So when Mick West tells you in that video that flat earthers are doing it wrong, he’s saying that we’re not always adding his made up “standard refraction” figures into the results his calculator gives us. Most of us do anyway – just to shut him up. And even with adding in his sham, it still ends up that we are seeing things that should be hundreds of feet (sometimes miles) below the curvature. I personally don’t think anyone should add those figures in, because as you can see from Skunk Bay, refraction is anything but “standard”.
Okay, I think we’re all up to date now. I wanted to get that history of the heliocentric model done before I got to this “standard refraction” thing, so you’d already be well aware of how scientists just make up crap like shrinking mechanical arms, and do away with long accepted things like the ether – just because the results of the experiments don’t align with their preconceptions of how things should be. Mick West has done that with “standard refraction”. Without that added after-the-fact calculation, his earth curve calculator gives the same results as all the others.
Dig: Mike, that shrinking sun video blew me away! I’ve seen several others but that one is just crazy obvious!
That is a great one! But you have to have the right, dry conditions. Add humidity, and the sun will magnify as it’s moving away from you, giving the appearance that it disappears over the curve of the earth at the same size.
You can see this effect if you look at my two photos of Superstition Mountain side by side. The one where I’m only a mile or two away shows a much smaller mountain than the one where I’m 55 miles away. I’m heading back down there the next clear weekend, because I think I can get it from 65 miles away. That would be nearly 3000 feet supposed to be hidden on a 5000 foot mountain. I’ll post the photos here when it’s done.
Dig: Many globalists will say that this topic just sucks.
Lol.
Dig: But to answer your question I really don’t have any idea how a pressurized atmosphere could stay pressurized when adjacent to the vast vacuum of space.
Oh wait, unless there is a firmament or dome placed over it. But other than that – nope!
I can’t think of any other way either. They say that the vacuum of space is orders of magnitude greater than the most powerful vacuum we can create on earth. And according to the heliocentric model, there is absolutely nothing separating what is “our atmosphere” from what is “the vacuum of space”. How can that possibly be the case? I know what scientism says about it, but I find their explanation as absurd as the situation itself. Let’s see if anyone else on the site has an idea.
Notice that the meteorologist says that it is an “inversion“. Really? What does “inversion” mean?
a reversal of position, order, form, or relationship:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inversion
synonyms: reversal · transposition · turning about ·Is the image we see an inversion? Is it a reversal? A transposition? Nope.
It is an actual image of the skyline. Hey, but it was a nice attempt to transpose or reverse a clear and apparent point.
Hi Mike and dig4,
Ok the site is now flooded.
The great flood?
We are as just as convinced as we always have been. Must we plead for mercy?
Are you satisfied yet because this site does good stuff?
Mike said:
earth is a little more than 6000 years old
I have always had a problem with that. The Bible doesn’t subscribe to that. The best argument you can make from the Bible is that there is 6000 years back to Adam. But the first man was certainly not created the day the Earth was made. There could well have been many worlds before our one. You even questioned that one yourself. Whether Adam was the first intelligent being or human that God created on Earth. Why would there ever have been only one world for an eternal God?
We live in an age, although God did start again, so there were two ages / worlds, the Antediluvian Age and our age. But the Bible does support the idea that the Earth is older than the World, even way older or aeons older.
Auroras
Mike said this regarding a comment I made about how auroras are formed:
That’s the story we’ve been told. How can you personally verify it?
I cannot personally verify this like I can the existence of God, but the globe earth explains it better than the Flat Earth because of this one simple fact. The Globe Earth has the Antarctic as the South Pole and surrounds and the North Pole is the same as the South Pole in that they are the top and bottom of the globe in relation to the sun being closest at the equator or at least in the tropics. Thus, the aurora happens in both parts of the world because the poles are the same, albeit different sides of a magnet.
The Flat Earth on the other hand has the North Pole as the centre of the Flat Earth and the South Pole doesn’t actually exist. But for the sake of the argument, the South Pole is the circumference of the Flat Earth, yet the aurora still takes place there too even though it is completely different to the North Pole.
So the same phenomena takes place in two very different places. The Globe model says they are essentially the same place experiencing the same phenomenon, just different ends of the globe.
I think the Globe Model wins when it comes to explaining the aurora. The same phenomena because its a similar feature, similar location to the sun, and similar conditions.
Natural resources in Antarctica
Does it seem feasible that companies like BP and Exxon haven’t paid billions to politicians to get their greedy little hands all over those resources?
There are two major hindrances to extracting resources from the Antarctica. The first being that it is unbelievably inhospitable and consequently expensive to set up anything there, never mind oil wells and pipes etc. Secondly, the inhospitable climate also ensures that countries with territories there were happy to sign an accord to keep Antarctica free of such activity. If it were easy to get at such resources, then it may have turned out differently.
Before anyone calls BS on ignoring any oil deposits down there, NZ did the very same thing in a much more accessible area called the Kermadecs to our north. NZ set or are setting up the world’s largest marine reserve there in a largely unexplored part of the South Pacific in the subtropical zone. It is said the waters here are crystal clear and many wanted to keep it that way. It is also free of fishing. However, a new government is now trying to renege on progress toward the Kermadec Marine Reserve as it is called, so I am not sure where this is at now, but needless to say, if NZ wanted oil, it would be much easier to get it there.
Both Australia and New Zealand have territories in Antarctica and New Zealand just recently put a ban on oil exploration in their own country, so they are hardly interested in oil extraction in a continent that is covered in km of ice and not fit for human life. Australia is also not interested in resources in their part of Antarctica. Their own continent is rich in minerals so they are happy to mine away and ignore the frozen continent to their south. Remember that BP needs government permission to drill and explore in sovereign nations and their territorial waters and outlying islands etc.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12030723
A mountain or city skyline that cannot be seen most days means special circumstances need to be in place in order to see them. This is true for both models. So how does this favour the Flat Earth really. While the curvature argument supposedly should be making things invisible that are not, it is also true that the Flat Earth model should make things visible that are not. Both suffer because they are both not consistent. So both theories need special circumstances.
In the photo of Mt Ruapehu, if the Earth was flat it is still not visible most days just the same as if it were a sphere. So both theories need to explain what the special thing is that is happening to make it visible. Why is the onus only on the Sphere Earth model to explain it.
t8, the two are not equal. One has limits and the other has limitations. (Not exactly sure what that means but it sounded good at the time).
On the globe earth things can be seen that should not be able to be seen.
On the FE things that cannot be seen are beyond visibility. (Limitations, there you go)
There is a vanishing point beyond which no one can see on either model. This may be extended by atmospheric conditions but it cannot be overcome in the visable spectrum. (Limits, hey did I just make sense?)
Ok, the concept that really sucks! Vacuum! (2.22 minutes)
Please, if anyone has an idea how our atmosphere can coexist with the vacuum of space – speak out!
Hi,
Acts 17.21
( Now all the athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new)
Why not discuss useful things?
T8: The best argument you can make from the Bible is that there is 6000 years back to Adam. But the first man was certainly not created the day the Earth was made.
No, he was created 5 days after God created the heavens and the earth – on the 6th day. And that puts the age of the earth at around 6000 years old. Is there any valid reason to think otherwise?
T8: You even questioned that one yourself. Whether Adam was the first intelligent being or human that God created on Earth.
I sure did… back when I was still duped by the stories of scientism, and believed there was such a thing as “cavemen” who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. I’ve done 4 years of research into it since then, and have come to know (not think, but know) that there doesn’t exist one iota of empirical evidence to suggest our world is older than the Bible says it is.
T8: Why would there ever have been only one world for an eternal God?
I couldn’t tell you how many worlds God has created, but I’m talking only about our world, the earth. And as far as the scriptures teach, there will one day be a new earth, but as of now, there has only been this one that we and Adam have lived on. I asked you before how you got “worlds” from the scriptural word “ages”, but you must have missed it.
This is a little off topic for this thread, but it falls under the same broad umbrella. Because if it weren’t for the heliocentric model, there would be no big bang cosmogony, no amoeba to man evolution, and therefore no need for the billions of years old our earth is claimed by some to be.
Nick: Why not discuss useful things?
Who among us will decide which things are useful, and which are not? And by whose authority will that one make the decision?
Now to be fair, the last thing I asked you was about scripture. And I assume you consider scripture a useful thing to discuss, right? Here’s the question again…
Is the account of the Tower of Babel in the Bible a real historical account?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
