- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 3 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
It’s weird that you think that we can’t trust a scientist. I don’t think I can really argue this fact because the premise of the flat earth theory is based on the concept that we’re being lied to by evil scientists. I will say that I think you are wasting your time because the heliocentric view always be the one taught to people in a modern society. I don’t think you are a bad person but I do want you to realize that nothing is going to come from this other a feeling of self validation. The idea that the earth is flat is never going to be accepted by the mainstream or taught in science colleges. I think you should really try and ask yourself why are spreading this information and who it benefits. If you are doing this because a lot of Christians support it then fine. I’m trying to insult you but the Earth just isn’t flat and all your arguments are just pseudoscience that you will find on Youtube.
https://www.space.com/38931-kids-can-prove-earth-round.html
https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round#page-3
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/7-diy-experiments-b-o-b-the-earth-is-round
How to prove the Earth is round, featuring Neil deGrasse Tyson
https://gizmodo.com/how-to-prove-to-yourself-or-shaq-the-earth-is-round-1793441692
http://practicalphysics.org/greek-evidence-earths-shape-and-spin.html
Hi,
Perhaps I should state that the sky is not blue but burgundy.
All your beliefs are due to conditioning.
Prove me wrong
Nick, perhaps the majority of people are actually colorblind and you are right!
Hiya, I don’t have a computer until Monday and my phone is hopeless with posting so can only really read sorry.
Can we be the light of the world?
No reason at all. It most certainly could look like that. But then the observational evidence would have to support it, and it doesn’t. But what exactly were you looking at? You think it’s a sphere, because you’ve been programmed to think that. But what if it’s just a circular light in the firmament? God called it a light, right? Not a rock that reflects light from another entity, right? As I recall, God put TWO lights in the firmament – one to govern the day, and one to govern the night. Not one light and one reflector of that light.
My view here is the moon is a light from our perspective as it casts light onto the Earth. The fact that it is not the source of the light doesn’t negate it as a light. Jesus called us the light of the world (Matthew 5:14-16) and yet we are not the light itself right? If the moon wasn’t a light, then we wouldn’t see it I suppose.
Solar Storms
On a slightly different note, I have learned more about the Flat Earth theory from your text and videos. So the sun and moon light up the disc at different times and the moon as a light means it is always facing us regardless of where you are, but is small enough to be out of view to some places on the disc. Does the sun always face us too in this model? And what of solar flare and accompanied coronal mass ejection. These can fry our circuits and satellites and have done so. I googled the following info:
Since the particles all travel at the speed of light — 300,000 kilometers per second — the solar flare energy takes 500 seconds to arrive at Earth — a little more than eight minutes after it leaves the sun.
Can a small light in the firmament do this sort of damage and take 8 minutes to arrive on the disc?
Hi Mike,
It seems odd to me that one of the coldest areas of earth is in the centre of the disc.
And this theoretical 150 m high wall surrounds the earth but cannot be shown.
Is the disc perfectly round and is the theoretical wall exactly 150 m high?
What about the four corners of the earth that scripture speaks of?
Hi and welcome Anna,
We have a new convert to flat earth theory who has come back and used to be a moderator here.
We respect him and he wishes to test the idea here.
Nick: Another human dogma built on doubt, paranoia and conspiracy theories
and preferring personal observation over science.
You seem to be confused about what science is, Nick. Hopefully these scientists will help you out…
Science does not purvey absolute truth, science is a mechanism. It’s a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature, it’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match. – Isaac AsimovScience is not a collection of facts; it is a process of discovery. – Robert ZubrinScience is a process for learning about nature… – Richard FeynmanGet it? Science is a process of investigation, and the key element it cannot do without is personal observation. Stay tuned, there’s more on that to come…T8: Some stars wandered about the firmament in a random manner sometimes changing direction completely. Wandering stars as they were known, were unlike all other stars that had fixed orbits.
That’s right, wandering stars. The idea of “planets” didn’t come around until much later.
T8: Of course, once the perspective changed to the heliocentric view, these wandering stars had simple circular orbits around the sun and was much easier to explain and predict…. I mean, is it just a coincidence that these complex movements of wandering stars just happen to become simple perfect circular orbits once you place the Earth and wandering stars /planets as orbiting the sun?
Copernicus also assumed these alleged orbits were perfectly circular. Now they tell us they are elliptical in nature – which is another thing that refutes the heliocentric model. But more on that to come.
T8: The fact that there are billions of stars in each galaxy and billions of galaxies in the known universe just blows my mind. My only true reaction to it is to worship God.
I wish that were the same for everyone. But this theory that there are billions of stars in billions of galaxies in a near infinite vacuum called outer space has had quite the opposite effect. Instead of bringing more people to God, it has caused millions of former believers to turn their backs on Him. After all, relative to this vast universe, the earth is nothing special. Just another rock orbiting another star. But don’t take my word for it…
“Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us… on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. … Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. … It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. …Look back again at the pale blue dot of the preceding chapter. Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn’t strike you as unlikely, pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They, too, cherish the notion of a God who has created everything for their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?” – Carl Sagan
“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded… You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements – the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life – weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.” – Lawrence Krauss
Get the idea yet? Prepare yourself…
Copernicus also assumed these alleged orbits were perfectly circular. Now they tell us they are elliptical in nature – which is another thing that refutes the heliocentric model. But more on that to come.
The heliocentric model shows how simple the wandering stars elliptical (or not) orbit is. Usually when the complex becomes simple with a change of theory, it is because the lense is closer to the truth. And if the heliocentric model is wrong, then what are the chances that it simplifies and brings order to their orbits when in the old model, they appeared unpredictable, random, and complex at best? Really what is the chance that using an incorrect model by chance gives perfect symmetry?
Mike.
I believe that men would reject God more if the Flat Earth theory were true. They could conclude that aliens could have created our existence because it is within the bounds of an intelligent species to create such a world. A pet rabbit may be clever enough to figure out that its cage is not everything there is. It probably knows that the humans built it. Men might think the same. This disc could be a mere cage in a bigger construct.
The fact that the universe is so mind bogglingly big kinds rules out that we are a product of a intelligent finite race. It points more to an eternal being. But men are just ignorant anyway. Many will reject God given given any bit of info or excuse. A small finite world vs an almost infinite construct means the infinite one is way more incredible and thus if there was a creator for each, then the almost infinite one is probably a greater creator and at least almost infinite or infinite. The former could be created by a smart race of intelligent beings.
We are told when we look up it is a testimony to God and his nature. I agree. The known universe is incredible. Words cannot describe how amazing it is.
None of what I am saying proves anything, but pointing out that if we are tiny compared to God or creation doesn’t make us not important. I personally think that God reveals his eternal nature to us in his creation and that this eternal being love us with an eternal love bigger than the universe itself because life is greater than the physical realm.
All scientist are doing is comparing our bodies which are physical to the universe which is physical. The ignore how consciousness and life came about. Thus, Flat Earth or not, they would come up with the same conclusion. In the Flat Earth, they could say our bodies are made up of particles that are being emitted by the sun lamp in the firmament.
Jonathan: It’s weird that you think that we can’t trust a scientist.
Uh, read the quotes I just posted for T8. There are hundreds more just like them from scientists who laugh at believers and do everything in their power to convince children and adults that belief in God is a ridiculous notion for which we should all be ashamed of ourselves. Are these the scientists you trust? Because if so, let’s take a little walk down memory lane, and discover how the world went from being a firmament-domed plane to an insignificant little blue dot in a universe so huge that one would have to be a complete idiot to believe there was some God out there who made it just for us.
For the majority of the history of the earth, people believed the earth was flat, created by an intelligent designer, and that the sun, moon and stars rotated around us.
Then came Eratosthenes, who we’re told lived from 276 BC to 195 BC – although many in the flat earth community doubt his existence, since we have been unable to locate any mention of him before the 1980’s. But here’s Carl Sagan telling the Eratosthenes story in the 1980 BBC mini-series Cosmos. (Please watch the 4 minute video before reading further.)
There are a few problems with this story of how intelligent humans first came to realize the earth was a ball, but the biggest is that the same shadow effect can happen on a flat earth – as shown in this 30 second video…
But just in case you don’t want to believe a flat earther, here’s everybody’s favorite ball earther, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, telling you the same thing in a 1 minute video…
Notice that at the 37 second mark, Neil says there are TWO possible explanations, one of which is that the earth is flat, and the sun is close by. Pay special attention to the 47 second mark, where the graphics are showing how the sun rays of a close by sun would fan out, hitting the wells from different angles. Kind of like these crepuscular rays that we see all over the place, huh?
Then notice at the 1:02 mark, he doubles down by saying both explanations can fit Eratosthenes’ observations. Then he destroys the Eratosthenes experiment for good by saying if only he had a third well to measure, there could be no question that the earth was spherical. Firstly, that is a blatantly false statement. But more importantly, he makes it clear that Eratosthenes used only TWO wells – which wasn’t enough to prove the shape of the earth either way. So this ball earth “proof” that every brings up to show us that intelligent people knew the earth was a ball 2000 years ago is not even a proof at all, since the experiment works equally well on a flat earth. And furthermore, why, in the following 2000+ years, has nobody done the experiment with a third well to prove the rotundity of the earth?
At the very least, nobody can honestly use the Eratosthenes story as “proof” anymore, which brings us all the way from the 3rd century BC to Copernicus in the 16th century AD… a full 1700 years later.
Much more of the saga to come, but it’s late and I’m hungry. Cheers.
T8: And if the heliocentric model is wrong, then what are the chances that it simplifies and brings order to their orbits when in the old model, they appeared unpredictable, random, and complex at best? Really what is the chance that using an incorrect model by chance gives perfect symmetry?
You’re not thinking straight. The ancients used the wandering stars to “serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years”. (Gen 1:14) They were, and still are, very predictable. Their “symmetry” is the same amount of “perfect” whether they are running on their God-appointed circuits in the firmament, or traveling billions and billions of miles around the sun in outer space. The supposed elliptical orbits of planets kills the heliocentric model in a couple other ways, but I’m not ready to go there just yet.
Hey friend, instead of posting every single thing you can think of to defend the godless atheists who promote the Big Bang heliocentric model, why not take a second to really THINK about the things I’ve already shown you, and continue to show you? For example…
- They say the earth is a ball 25,000 miles in circumference.
- Their math says this amounts to 8 inches of curvature per mile squared.
- You and I can physically observe things that are supposed to be hidden by the curve of the earth.
- Therefore, the model is already debunked – without even bringing up another piece of evidence.
- They say we can’t see a full moon in the daytime.
- We can see a full moon in the daytime.
- Therefore, the model is already debunked – without even bringing up another piece of evidence.
- They say the earth is what causes the shadow on the moon during an eclipse.
- Many eclipses occur while sun and moon are both visible in the sky – showing it can’t be the earth causing the shadow.
- Therefore, the model is already debunked – without even bringing up another piece of evidence.
So, before you bring up another heliocentric “proof”, why not first consider why we can all see things in the distance that would be impossible to see if the earth really was a ball 25,000 miles in circumference? Or how we can see the top of the moon eclipsed, while the bottom is still bright? Or why we can see a full moon in the daytime? Or why we can see an eclipse when the sun and the moon are both in the sky? Or how Jesus must have been mistaken when he said the stars will fall to the earth – since not even one single star could get anywhere close to the earth without disintegrating it? Or how the Bible was wrong when it said Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still in the sky – since he really commanded the earth and moon to both stop rotating and orbiting?
T8: I believe that men would reject God more if the Flat Earth theory were true. They could conclude that aliens could have created our existence because it is within the bounds of an intelligent species to create such a world.
Aliens? From where? 🙂
T8: In the Flat Earth, they could say our bodies are made up of particles that are being emitted by the sun lamp in the firmament.
Ah, but everybody on earth would know that the sun lamp and the firmament were created, right? And that would make all the difference in the world. What valid reason would anyone have to believe that particles accidentally made us when we all knew our world was created by someone? Even in the heliocentric model, if we were shown proof that God created the heavens and the earth, who would still believe that we were accidents?
Ah, but everybody on earth would know that the sun lamp and the firmament were created, right?
Funnily enough yes because men can be stupid. If it is too amazing, it is not created, but if it shows design and it is simple and finite, then it is created. That is because we create finite stuff all the time so it would be not too far above what we could accomplish given enough time and it would inevitably lead to the belief in a creator rather than coming from nothing. Many ignore the infinite or near infinite stuff as having a creator because it is so amazing that no one could be that clever to create it. But God is honest. He is eternal and doesn’t do things in half measures. The heavens (plural) declare his glory. I am not so sure a bunch of lamps embedded into a ceiling declares his glory.
We could debate the psychology of both models on humans, but neither proves it scientifically, but the heliocentric model does prove that the creator if there is one must be not just above us, but infinitely above us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
