Jump to content

Primary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Secondary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Squares Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to Christianity Board!
Christianity Board is a thriving forum community for registered members to share, pray, and respectfully debate about the faith in Jesus Christ. We are a nondenominational Christian forum in that we welcome the diversity of Christianity and we are not attached to any one denominational group. Join today for access to posting on the forums, chatting in the shoutbox, creating a blog, private messenger, profile features and so much more. May your time here be blessed in the name of Jesus!
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Why do some rare Christians think the world is flat?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1
Shepherdess57

Shepherdess57

    Newbie

  • New CB Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Hi!  Why do you think it is that some rare Christians think the world is flat?   Have you heard of this belief or know someone who believes this way who claims to be a Christian?   Do you think they sincerely belief that?  Or do you think they must be a part of a cult if they believe that way?

 

Jesus said that some people were able to know that it was going  to rain if the sky looks red.  But He incredulously exclaimed at how slow they were to accept Him.  This is one verse that implies to me that if people are ignoring obvious facts, that something must be the matter with their attitude.   Though I'll have to admit that to an extent, even the sincerest people make some far-out incorrect conclusions in some things at times.

 

Matt 16:2-3
 
2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
 
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
KJV
 

  • 0

#2
bbyrd009

bbyrd009

    Groper

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,173 posts

i would note that whatever one believes on the matter, their daily walk is not practically altered in any way. Therefore the argument becomes about dividing people over something that can be demonstrated to be irrelevant, at least for most of us. When you go to build a house, the fact that you hire a surveyor who works on a flat plain may be overshadowed by the fact that you are establishing an earthly, permanent dwelling, which requires that you participate in the world, iow.


  • 0

"Creation is continuous, and never stops."


#3
shnarkle

shnarkle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts

Hi!  Why do you think it is that some rare Christians think the world is flat?   Have you heard of this belief or know someone who believes this way who claims to be a Christian?   Do you think they sincerely belief that?  Or do you think they must be a part of a cult if they believe that way?
 
Jesus said that some people were able to know that it was going  to rain if the sky looks red.  But He incredulously exclaimed at how slow they were to accept Him.  This is one verse that implies to me that if people are ignoring obvious facts, that something must be the matter with their attitude.   Though I'll have to admit that to an extent, even the sincerest people make some far-out incorrect conclusions in some things at times.
 
Matt 16:2-3
 
2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
 
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
KJV


I don't think this is something that is confined to Christians. I think what it boils down to is a woefully pathetic educational system that inculcates rather than educates. Then after years of this nonsense people finally wake up to the fact that they know virtually nothing about the world around them. They start asking questions; better late than never.

They need answers, and instead of answering their questions, the rest of us just sit back and laugh at them as if they're idiots, when the reality is that if we could prove the earth was flat or round, we'd do it in a heartbeat. We can't. The proofs can all be used to prove either proposition.

Here's a prime example. Eratosthenes "proved" that the circumference of the earth was approximately 24k miles. How did he do this? He assumed that the sun was so far away that its rays were parallel to the earth. He then measured the angle of shade at one point during the day and another angle from another building about 400 miles away. One building had no shadow while the other had a bit more. By looking at the difference in angles, he was able to calculate the diameter and circumference of the earth. This proves the earth is round, right?

Only if we agree with his assumptions. Why should we? If we assume that the sun is only a few thousand miles away, then this would tend to suggest that the earth is flat.

I'm not suggesting one or the other, but simply pointing out that if you don't have conclusive proof, then you have no right to scoff at someone who just wants to know the truth. If someone decides that they don't want to remain in ignorance for the rest of their lives, we as Christians ought to help them, not scoff at them.
  • 0

#4
bbyrd009

bbyrd009

    Groper

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,173 posts

flat earth theory destroyed, in a 30 second close up of the moon

https://www.facebook...hc_ref=NEWSFEED


Edited by bbyrd009, 10 February 2017 - 08:06 AM.

  • 0

"Creation is continuous, and never stops."


#5
shnarkle

shnarkle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts

flat earth theory destroyed, in a 30 second close up of the moon
https://www.facebook...hc_ref=NEWSFEED


What am I missing here? The round moon proves a round earth? We always see the same side of the moon as well, does this prove that the earth isn't spinning?

It is quite amazing that we never see even a little tiny bit of the other side of the moon ever. It is revolving around the earth in such a precise manner as to never allow us the slightest peek at even a sliver of the other side. What are the odds? If I had my tinfoil hat handy, I'd say it's some conspiracy to hide the dark side of the moon from us.
  • 0

#6
heavenfold

heavenfold

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts

Hi!  Why do you think it is that some rare Christians think the world is flat?   Have you heard of this belief or know someone who believes this way who claims to be a Christian?   Do you think they sincerely belief that?  Or do you think they must be a part of a cult if they believe that way?
 
Jesus said that some people were able to know that it was going  to rain if the sky looks red.  But He incredulously exclaimed at how slow they were to accept Him.  This is one verse that implies to me that if people are ignoring obvious facts, that something must be the matter with their attitude.   Though I'll have to admit that to an extent, even the sincerest people make some far-out incorrect conclusions in some things at times.
 
Matt 16:2-3
 
2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
 
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
KJV

Why, well I could say for the same reason millions of people don't believe in evolution.
  • 1
Diffrent rules for different fools.

#7
bbyrd009

bbyrd009

    Groper

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,173 posts

What am I missing here? The round moon proves a round earth? We always see the same side of the moon as well, does this prove that the earth isn't spinning?

It is quite amazing that we never see even a little tiny bit of the other side of the moon ever. It is revolving around the earth in such a precise manner as to never allow us the slightest peek at even a sliver of the other side. What are the odds? If I had my tinfoil hat handy, I'd say it's some conspiracy to hide the dark side of the moon from us.

i guess that is actually more common than one might think; mercury is phase-locked, or almost, etc. Despite the light reflecting from the edge of the apparent globe of the moon in the video, this is just what our eyes are telling us, and of Omega= 1, the earth is as flat as the rest of the universe. Which doesn't make much sense, i guess, until you contemplate that our orbit around the sun appears to be a circle, but is actually a straight line in the gravity well of the sun. Omegais either less than, greater than, or equal to 1, and we just don't know the answer to that, i guess.


Edited by bbyrd009, 11 February 2017 - 07:38 AM.

  • 0

"Creation is continuous, and never stops."


#8
shnarkle

shnarkle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts

i guess that is actually more common than one might think; mercury is phase-locked, or almost, etc. Despite the light reflecting from the edge of the apparent globe of the moon in the video, this is just what our eyes are telling us, and of Omega= 1, the earth is as flat as the rest of the universe. Which doesn't make much sense, i guess, until you contemplate that our orbit around the sun appears to be a circle, but is actually a straight line in the gravity well of the sun. Omegais either less than, greater than, or equal to 1, and we just don't know the answer to that, i guess.


Our supposed line of travel appears to be an orbit around the sun until you factor in the sun's movement in a line going some 60k+ miles an hour. Then our line of travel is some sort of spiral, but then when we consider that the galaxy we're a part of is moving something like a million miles an hour in another direction well ther's no telling what's going on anymore, except for some new information that scientists have dubbed "the axis of evil".

Have you heard of this yet? They've discovered that the universe has an axis, sort of like a spine to the universe, and as it turns out, it's a bit off kilter; a little bit curved, and the worst thing about it is that it appears that our solar system is in the center; that's the center of the universe for those playing at being scientists. So scientists have decided this is truly an evil observation. The explanation I've heard for this title is that they're injecting humor into an otherwise stressful discovery. I thought scoliosis would have been more appropriate, but that might have offended some people, so I guess "axis of evil" is pretty funny, especially with all the laughs it received in the political arena.
  • 0

#9
bbyrd009

bbyrd009

    Groper

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,173 posts

Our supposed line of travel appears to be an orbit around the sun until you factor in the sun's movement in a line going some 60k+ miles an hour. Then our line of travel is some sort of spiral, but then when we consider that the galaxy we're a part of is moving something like a million miles an hour in another direction well ther's no telling what's going on anymore, except for some new information that scientists have dubbed "the axis of evil".

Have you heard of this yet? They've discovered that the universe has an axis, sort of like a spine to the universe, and as it turns out, it's a bit off kilter; a little bit curved, and the worst thing about it is that it appears that our solar system is in the center; that's the center of the universe for those playing at being scientists. So scientists have decided this is truly an evil observation. The explanation I've heard for this title is that they're injecting humor into an otherwise stressful discovery. I thought scoliosis would have been more appropriate, but that might have offended some people, so I guess "axis of evil" is pretty funny, especially with all the laughs it received in the political arena.

well, that was interesting, i missed that somehow, lol. I guess they dubbed it evil for all of the havoc it creates with existing models? Wouldn't surprise me a bit to discover that Israel is the physical center of the universe, as well as the spiritual one :) Nice to see our knowledge of the known universe has gotten to almost 5%! Lol


  • 0

"Creation is continuous, and never stops."


#10
liafailrock

liafailrock

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

What am I missing here? The round moon proves a round earth? We always see the same side of the moon as well, does this prove that the earth isn't spinning?

It is quite amazing that we never see even a little tiny bit of the other side of the moon ever. It is revolving around the earth in such a precise manner as to never allow us the slightest peek at even a sliver of the other side. What are the odds? If I had my tinfoil hat handy, I'd say it's some conspiracy to hide the dark side of the moon from us.

 It's called Tidal locking,and there is a reason physics gives for that. Since the moon's orbit is not perfectly circular and its speed varies, it's rotation is such that we can see a little past each side of the meridian.  Also,due to its orbital inclination we can see a little "north and south" of what faces us.  In short, from the earth at various times we can see 59% of the moon's surface. The fancy term is called libration.


Edited by liafailrock, 22 February 2017 - 02:46 PM.

  • 0

My interests include topics such as mathematics, astronomy, biblical prophecy and I am a gnomonist.  I joking call myself "Sir Isaac Newton lite".  My interests are the same as Sir Isaac Newton, who was IMO the greatest theologian.


#11
liafailrock

liafailrock

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

It's not difficult to disprove a flat earth.  One indisputable proof is the sundial.  I can make a sundial here in the states for any country in the world and it works perfectly.  The calculations for a sundial are based on spherical trigonometry and circular geometric shapes.  It would not work (mathematically speaking) on a flat plane as that's a totally different shape.

 

There is also a "doctrine" going around that says the earth is indeed round, but everything revolves around it.  Again, Newtonian physics is  at a severe disagreement with it and like my sundials, would not work.  Yet, due to the low relative velocity, Newtonian physics is good enough to calculate local space travel.  The geosynchronous satellite is one proof. While such "universe revolvers" have "explanations" why the satellite is indeed stationary (!) instead of revolving at the rate the earth rotates, and have the same explanations for the Foucault pendulum, I find it interesting that the people who never even launched the rocket are going to tell scientists all about it, and indeed, I've have yet to see one mathematical calculation come from them.


  • 0

My interests include topics such as mathematics, astronomy, biblical prophecy and I am a gnomonist.  I joking call myself "Sir Isaac Newton lite".  My interests are the same as Sir Isaac Newton, who was IMO the greatest theologian.


#12
shnarkle

shnarkle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts

It's not difficult to disprove a flat earth.  One indisputable proof is the sundial.  I can make a sundial here in the states for any country in the world and it works perfectly.  The calculations for a sundial are based on spherical trigonometry and circular geometric shapes.  It would not work (mathematically speaking) on a flat plane as that's a totally different shape.


That all sounds fine, but if you'd like to supply an argument or some proof that would be greatly appreciated. I especially appreciate it when people can actually present the proofs themselves rather than a copy/paste job, or a link. We made sundials in college, along with meridian plinths and just simple gnomons from large nails. I can run a light along a flat plane onto a sundial on a flat plane and get pretty much the same results I see on that sundial out in the back yard. I've also noticed that most of the proofs for a spherical earth can be used to prove a flat one as well. Erotosthenes is probably my favorite.
 

There is also a "doctrine" going around that says the earth is indeed round, but everything revolves around it.  Again, Newtonian physics is  at a severe disagreement with it and like my sundials, would not work. It wouldn't work within that framework.


Maybe that's why people are presenting different frameworks to get it to work.

Yet, due to the low relative velocity, Newtonian physics is good enough to calculate local space travel.  The geosynchronous satellite is one proof.


Now if we could just get someone to show us any of these satellites. Supposedly there are over twenty thousand satellites floating around in space. The only one I've seen was skylab, and maybe a few others. I've never seen anything close to twenty thousand of them.

While such "universe revolvers" have "explanations" why the satellite is indeed stationary (!) instead of revolving at the rate the earth rotates, and have the same explanations for the Foucault pendulum, I find it interesting that the people who never even launched the rocket are going to tell scientists all about it, and indeed, I've have yet to see one mathematical calculation come from them.


I grew up about 15 miles from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Our next door neighbor worked on improving the accuracy of gps technology at area 51. He worked with a team that was able to get it down from 20 or 30' down to less than a few feet. He then got a job at as an engineer at Vandenberg. He worked there until he retired a few decades later. The guy was a genius. He could tell you the temperature of the sun in Fahrenheit, Celsius, and Kelvin without thinking about it. He looked kind of like the stereotypical nerd with pens and thingamabobs in his shirt pocket, but when he started talking it was like listening to a cross between Chuck Yeager and Albert Einstein. He drove an AMC Javelin. The car looked totally stock, but could blow the doors off any kid's hot rod in the neighborhood. I wouldn't be surprised it he was running rocket fuel to boost it.

I spent years watching rockets blow up. The first time I saw one that didn't explode I was dumbfounded. Running out to the front yard when we heard the windows shaking and the ground rumbling was always a treat, especially when they blew up shortly after leaving the launch pad. The fireworks display was always impressive. Sometime around the late 70's they got one to not only drop a few stages, but to fly downrange to the Kwajalein Atoll. One of the engineers, perhaps even our neighbor; was asked by a news reporter, what sort of potential enemy targets they could hit with any accuracy. His response: "The only thing we can hit with any degree of certainty is Los Angeles". VAFB is about a two and a half hour drive by car, and that is almost an exact quote. The comment was both hilarious, and a bit disturbing. Most people just shrugged it off after having a good belly laugh. It was also a good five years after the last moon landings. When all of those defense contractors moved into our sleepy little town the boost to the economy was not something anyone couldn't help noticing.

Years later VAFB got the okay to build a launch facility for the space shuttle. There were some complaints from Lompoc about the potential noise. The noise was already an issue with many of their other launches, but the space shuttle was going to be significantly louder, and people were not happy about it. So to appease the locals, the launch pad was built up against a mountain to muffle the noise. When the six billion dollar project was completed. Someone discovered that the pad was built too close to the mountain. This was a problem because they had to be able to dump a million and a half gallons of water onto the pad to prevent the pad from melting. There wasn't enough room for all of this water and exhaust to escape from this very nearby mountain. This was not some scribal or clerical error. This was not a miscalculation. This was just weird. I heard this from three people who worked at VAFB. One thought it was funny. One was completely disgusted and took an early retirement because of it, and the other thought it was disturbing that so many people could miss something like that.

Fortunately, the space shuttle blew up and this became the cover story for why they were no longer going to be doing launches from VAFB. So, what do you think really happened? a) the space shuttle blew up; B) they goofed on where to put their 6 billion dollar launch pad; or c) politics

I include politics because contracts can go from one contractor to another in a heartbeat. I'm inclined to go along with B) or c), but a) is a long shot. If it's c, then no problem. If it's b, then we got a serious problem because how is it that these guys can't seem to get a launch pad in the right location, but they can land a rocket capsule on the moon? How is it that they can't seem to hit anything farther away than LA five years after they've been to the moon so many times?

Building model rockets with solid rocket fuel engines was something we all did as kids, but one doesn't need to know much of anything about rocketry to know that something here just doesn't add up. When a whole town is busy cashing checks from the Federal government, there aren't going to be a whole lot of people asking any questions. Those who do are either laughed at, or quickly ignored, if they're even noticed in the first place.


Edited by shnarkle, 23 February 2017 - 12:13 AM.

  • 0

#13
shnarkle

shnarkle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts

It's called Tidal locking,and there is a reason physics gives for that.


I like that they always have reasons, but when it comes to arguments or proofs we get crickets chirping or a wall of text that could just as easily be cut down to a paragraph or two.

Since the moon's orbit is not perfectly circular and its speed varies, it's rotation is such that we can see a little past each side of the meridian.  Also,due to its orbital inclination we can see a little "north and south" of what faces us.  In short, from the earth at various times we can see 59% of the moon's surface. The fancy term is called libration.


And this proves the earth is round, or flat?
  • 0

#14
liafailrock

liafailrock

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

My point was not that the tidal locking was to prove the earth is round.  I was merely explaining the phenomenon of seeing the same side of the moon. The point I used that the earth was round was the sundial.  Even flat earthers must admit the sun is very far away, maybe not 93M miles, but they believe it's far.  If we find a point on earth where the sun is overhead, it's altitude is in direct proportion with the distance traveled, as in the angular measure on a protractor.  For example, if we travel 690 miles and the sun is now 80 degrees elevation, another 690 it will be 70 degrees--- linear.  Now, if the earth was flat and 690 miles gave us 80 degrees, We'd have closer to 71 degrees (70.6).  The error gets greater further out.  A circular distance of 2760 miles yields an altitude of 50 degrees.  On a flat earth this distance yields 54.8 degrees altitude, almost 5 degrees error which is quite noticeable. The sun's elevation is then a function of the cotangent of the distance rather than a linear arc distance. Of course this does not happen.  BTW, to get these figures, the sun needs to be only 3913 miles.  If the sun is much further, even just a million miles, the difference in elevation would not be great at all -- the sun's elevation would be virtually the same on all points of the flat earth. To prove all this is not deep scientific theory.  It's simple geometry/trigonometry to indisputably prove the earth is round.


  • 0

My interests include topics such as mathematics, astronomy, biblical prophecy and I am a gnomonist.  I joking call myself "Sir Isaac Newton lite".  My interests are the same as Sir Isaac Newton, who was IMO the greatest theologian.


#15
shnarkle

shnarkle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts

The point I used that the earth was round was the sundial.  Even flat earthers must admit the sun is very far away, maybe not 93M miles, but they believe it's far.


I'm not a flat earther, but from what I've seen they don't think it's far away at all; just a few thousand miles.
 

A circular distance of 2760 miles yields an altitude of 50 degrees.  On a flat earth this distance yields 54.8 degrees altitude, almost 5 degrees error which is quite noticeable.


Really?  If we take a flight from San Francisco to San Diego when we reach cruising altitude we can see a few hundred miles from north to south.  Given that there is a degree of curvature for every 60 or so miles we should be able to see a quite noticeable slant; how come we don't?  Not only is it not noticeable when we look at the ground below, but there is no noticeable curvature looking at the horizon either.  If this is "quite noticeable", how come no one seems to notice any curvature whatsoever?  A few degrees of curvature should be quite noticeable the farther we get away from the angle, no?  You can't get much farther away than the horizon, and yet all we see is a flat horizon. 
 

The sun's elevation is then a function of the cotangent of the distance rather than a linear arc distance. Of course this does not happen.  BTW, to get these figures, the sun needs to be only 3913 miles.  If the sun is much further, even just a million miles, the difference in elevation would not be great at all -- the sun's elevation would be virtually the same on all points of the flat earth.


This seems to be one of the reasons these "flat-earth" people use to show that given the difference isn't noticeable, perspective really isn't a proof for a flat or round earth.  When the exact same evidence can be used to prove either position, other arguments or proofs have to be presented.
 

To prove all this is not deep scientific theory.  It's simple geometry/trigonometry to indisputably prove the earth is round.


Please provide such simple Indisputable proofs.  Thanks.
  • 0

#16
shnarkle

shnarkle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts

It's not difficult to disprove a flat earth.  One indisputable proof is the sundial.  I can make a sundial here in the states for any country in the world and it works perfectly.  The calculations for a sundial are based on spherical trigonometry and circular geometric shapes.  It would not work (mathematically speaking) on a flat plane as that's a totally different shape.



That all sounds fine, but if you'd like to supply an argument or some proof that would be greatly appreciated. I especially appreciate it when people can actually present the proofs themselves rather than a copy/paste job, or a link. We made sundials in college, along with meridian plinths and just simple gnomons from large nails. I can run a light along a flat plane onto a sundial on a flat plane and get pretty much the same results I see on that sundial out in the back yard. I've also noticed that most of the proofs for a spherical earth can be used to prove a flat one as well. Erotosthenes is probably my favorite.
 
 

There is also a "doctrine" going around that says the earth is indeed round, but everything revolves around it.  Again, Newtonian physics is  at a severe disagreement with it and like my sundials, would not work. It wouldn't work within that framework.



Maybe that's why people are presenting different frameworks to get it to work.

 

Yet, due to the low relative velocity, Newtonian physics is good enough to calculate local space travel.  The geosynchronous satellite is one proof.



Now if we could just get someone to show us any of these satellites. Supposedly there are over twenty thousand satellites floating around in space. The only one I've seen was skylab, and maybe a few others. I've never seen anything close to twenty thousand of them.

 

While such "universe revolvers" have "explanations" why the satellite is indeed stationary (!) instead of revolving at the rate the earth rotates, and have the same explanations for the Foucault pendulum, I find it interesting that the people who never even launched the rocket are going to tell scientists all about it, and indeed, I've have yet to see one mathematical calculation come from them.



I grew up about 15 miles from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Our next door neighbor worked on improving the accuracy of gps technology at area 51. He worked with a team that was able to get it down from 20 or 30' down to less than a few feet. He then got a job at as an engineer at Vandenberg. He worked there until he retired a few decades later. The guy was a genius. He could tell you the temperature of the sun in Fahrenheit, Celsius, and Kelvin without thinking about it. He looked kind of like the stereotypical nerd with pens and thingamabobs in his shirt pocket, but when he started talking it was like listening to a cross between Chuck Yeager and Albert Einstein. He drove an AMC Javelin. The car looked totally stock, but could blow the doors off any kid's hot rod in the neighborhood. I wouldn't be surprised it he was running rocket fuel to boost it.

I spent years watching rockets blow up. The first time I saw one that didn't explode I was dumbfounded. Running out to the front yard when we heard the windows shaking and the ground rumbling was always a treat, especially when they blew up shortly after leaving the launch pad. The fireworks display was always impressive. Sometime around the late 70's they got one to not only drop a few stages, but to fly downrange to the Kwajalein Atoll. One of the engineers, perhaps even our neighbor; was asked by a news reporter, what sort of potential enemy targets they could hit with any accuracy. His response: "The only thing we can hit with any degree of certainty is Los Angeles". VAFB is about a two and a half hour drive by car, and that is almost an exact quote. The comment was both hilarious, and a bit disturbing. Most people just shrugged it off after having a good belly laugh. It was also a good five years after the last moon landings. When all of those defense contractors moved into our sleepy little town the boost to the economy was not something anyone couldn't help noticing.

Years later VAFB got the okay to build a launch facility for the space shuttle. There were some complaints from Lompoc about the potential noise. The noise was already an issue with many of their other launches, but the space shuttle was going to be significantly louder, and people were not happy about it. So to appease the locals, the launch pad was built up against a mountain to muffle the noise. When the six billion dollar project was completed. Someone discovered that the pad was built too close to the mountain. This was a problem because they had to be able to dump a million and a half gallons of water onto the pad to prevent the pad from melting. There wasn't enough room for all of this water and exhaust to escape from this very nearby mountain. This was not some scribal or clerical error. This was not a miscalculation. This was just weird. I heard this from three people who worked at VAFB. One thought it was funny. One was completely disgusted and took an early retirement because of it, and the other thought it was disturbing that so many people could miss something like that.

Fortunately, the space shuttle blew up and this became the cover story for why they were no longer going to be doing launches from VAFB. So, what do you think really happened? a) the space shuttle blew up; B) they goofed on where to put their 6 billion dollar launch pad; or c) politics

I include politics because contracts can go from one contractor to another in a heartbeat. I'm inclined to go along with B) or c), but a) is a long shot. If it's c, then no problem. If it's b, then we got a serious problem because how is it that these guys can't seem to get a launch pad in the right location, but they can land a rocket capsule on the moon? How is it that they can't seem to hit anything farther away than LA five years after they've been to the moon so many times?

Building model rockets with solid rocket fuel engines was something we all did as kids, but one doesn't need to know much of anything about rocketry to know that something here just doesn't add up. When a whole town is busy cashing checks from the Federal government, there aren't going to be a whole lot of people asking any questions. Those who do are either laughed at, or quickly ignored, if they're even noticed in the first place.
[/quote]

Here's a link to a clip of a guy who was watching a launch from Cape Canaveral skip to 1:25 to get the part where he talks about these brainiacs running for cover as the missile explodes a mere 1600' above their heads, and rains down literal fire from the sky onto not just the bunker they're sitting in, but onto the vehicles they drove to work that day.

https://www.youtube....h?v=iJP5ncnLwgE[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]


Edited by shnarkle, 23 February 2017 - 12:13 PM.

  • 0

#17
liafailrock

liafailrock

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

I just gave you the indisputable proofs.  I was comparing radians and linear distance to degrees of solar elevation above the horizon, not airplane flights.  I don't know what you were talking about seeing curvature as I was not talking about visually seeing that at all.  So apparently you totally misunderstood me. What I said was a flat earth would require a cotangent calculation making the solar altitude 55 degrees instead of a circular 50 degrees (which is what it is). If the earth were flat, then the solar altitude would indeed be 55 degrees.  It is not.  Don't make this simple geometry more complicated than it is.


  • 0

My interests include topics such as mathematics, astronomy, biblical prophecy and I am a gnomonist.  I joking call myself "Sir Isaac Newton lite".  My interests are the same as Sir Isaac Newton, who was IMO the greatest theologian.


#18
shnarkle

shnarkle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts

I just gave you the indisputable proofs.  I was comparing radians and linear distance to degrees of solar elevation above the horizon, not airplane flights.  I don't know what you were talking about seeing curvature as I was not talking about visually seeing that at all.  So apparently you totally misunderstood me. What I said was a flat earth would require a cotangent calculation making the solar altitude 55 degrees instead of a circular 50 degrees (which is what it is). If the earth were flat, then the solar altitude would indeed be 55 degrees.  It is not.  Don't make this simple geometry more complicated than it is.


You think you've proven something when you've done nothing but make assertions according to your model.  I'm not disputing that your model works.  I'm pointing out that the exact same data can be plugged into a flat earth model and work just as well.  This is the problem we have.  It's been shown repeatedly.  You don't even know what the flat earth model is, or how far the distances are for the flat earth model.  All it takes is reverse engineering the numbers to the proper distances to make it work.  We can do this for either model.  The problem we face is to find some way to show that a globe or flat earth model doesn't work with some argument or proof.

The angular degrees argument doesn't work to prove much of anything because we can just move the sun closer to the earth and make it smaller to make it fit the measurements we observe.

For example we do this with the pole star.  We look at the fact that the pole star doesn't move from one end of our orbit around the sun to the other.  Given that this distance is over 186 billion miles, the pole star must be 47 times as large as the sun(in order to see it) and a distance so far away that we can't even comprehend the number.  All we've done is do some simple math to calculate for our model.  This doesn't prove anything, except that we know how to solve for a couple unknown numbers in a given equation.  What those numbers refer to in that equation are assumed to be true.  This is no different than Erotosthenes  so called "proof".
  • 0

#19
liafailrock

liafailrock

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

 

 

You think you've proven something when you've done nothing but make assertions according to your model.  I'm not disputing that your model works.  I'm pointing out that the exact same data can be plugged into a flat earth model and work just as well.

 This is incorrect.  While I understand making data fit to a model, the data does not fit for a flat earth model.  Your statement (I understand you don't believe in a flat earth) cannot be plugged into a flat earth model and work.  That was my point in the cotangent calculation of solar altitude.  To make it "work" one would have to adjust the distance of the sun depending where they are located, which of course is ludicrous.  

 

 

 

The angular degrees argument doesn't work to prove much of anything because we can just move the sun closer to the earth and make it smaller to make it fit the measurements we observe.

Actually it does work quite well as I already mentioned that one has to vary the solar distance to make it work.  So if one person is at one location and the solar distance must be so-and-so to make the altitude work, and another is at another distance, they have to have a different solar distance to make their altitude work?  The sun can't be two distances, or again, many distances depending who is observing it.  

 

I'm not convinced you are grasping the geometric/trigonometric concepts I am conveying.  Your arguments make no sense.  Do you need mathematical equations/picture images to demonstrate what I am saying because what you are stating is not true nor makes any sense? 


  • 0

My interests include topics such as mathematics, astronomy, biblical prophecy and I am a gnomonist.  I joking call myself "Sir Isaac Newton lite".  My interests are the same as Sir Isaac Newton, who was IMO the greatest theologian.


#20
Josho

Josho

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 265 posts

 

Hi!  Why do you think it is that some rare Christians think the world is flat?   Have you heard of this belief or know someone who believes this way who claims to be a Christian?   Do you think they sincerely belief that?  Or do you think they must be a part of a cult if they believe that way?

 

Jesus said that some people were able to know that it was going  to rain if the sky looks red.  But He incredulously exclaimed at how slow they were to accept Him.  This is one verse that implies to me that if people are ignoring obvious facts, that something must be the matter with their attitude.   Though I'll have to admit that to an extent, even the sincerest people make some far-out incorrect conclusions in some things at times.

 

Matt 16:2-3
 
2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
 
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
KJV

 

I don't know of anyone personally who believes that the world is flat. In Isaiah 40:22 you can find out that this earth is a circle, but it's clear as anything, when ya can cross the end of the timezone boundary from Australia to LA in a plane without flying off into outer space, and you can see a slight curvature of the earth if you're in the right place looking out at the horizon, so i would be really surprised if I met anyone who really believed that the world is flat, with the exception of little kids.


Edited by Josho, 25 February 2017 - 04:05 AM.

  • 0

#21
liafailrock

liafailrock

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

And I realized I never really answered the OP.  The flat earthers and geocentrists (who BTW are not all flat earthers) use various scripture literally such as when the sun and moon stood still (implying it revolves around the earth) and Psalm 19 where he created a tabernacle for the sun that runs its circuit (which is interpreted literally) and another psalm where the earth is immovable.  However, studying these passages doesn't actually say that the sun moves or the earth is immovable in the sense of being nailed down, but rather established.  I make sundials and I can use a celestial model where the sun moves around a flat plane, or more accurately, a semi-sphere around a point in the middle.  It matters not if the point moves or the sun on the sphere. It's a matter of perspective.  However, when I move a known distance to another location and make a sundial for that location, the solar/stellar positions and movements describe a round earth.  And as for which revolves around what stars around earth or vice versa, it does not take much to conclude the earth is rotating -- if stars rotated that fast it would exceed the speed of light and you'd get all sorts of funky images which of course we are not.  But when the earth rotates, it's on a sub-light speed scale and makes more sense.  It's Occam's razor where the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.  And a round earth and a rotating earth describes a MULTITUDE of observations without having a billion theories for each observation in its place. Another excellent example is Keplers Law (determining orbital speeds) and axial tilt of the earth going around the sun explains the seasons simply and effectively.  On the other hand, when those who believe the sun is going around the earth are asked to explain it, they have the sun going around and around and in and out and up and down like a spiral on a barbershop pole and they can explain the motion perhaps, but fail to state why the sun would move in space in such an odd fashion?  A billion theories to a simple two.  Certainly not following Occam's razor. LOL


  • 0

My interests include topics such as mathematics, astronomy, biblical prophecy and I am a gnomonist.  I joking call myself "Sir Isaac Newton lite".  My interests are the same as Sir Isaac Newton, who was IMO the greatest theologian.


#22
shnarkle

shnarkle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts

This is incorrect.  While I understand making data fit to a model, the data does not fit for a flat earth model.  Your statement (I understand you don't believe in a flat earth) cannot be plugged into a flat earth model and work.  That was my point in the cotangent calculation of solar altitude.  To make it "work" one would have to adjust the distance of the sun depending where they are located, which of course is ludicrous.  
 
Actually it does work quite well as I already mentioned that one has to vary the solar distance to make it work.  So if one person is at one location and the solar distance must be so-and-so to make the altitude work, and another is at another distance, they have to have a different solar distance to make their altitude work?  The sun can't be two distances, or again, many distances depending who is observing it.  
 
I'm not convinced you are grasping the geometric/trigonometric concepts I am conveying.  Your arguments make no sense.  Do you need mathematical equations/picture images to demonstrate what I am saying because what you are stating is not true nor makes any sense?


I'm not saying the sun needs to be far away and close. I'm pointing out that the flat earth model requires a sun that is much closer, and you have no direct proof that the sun is as far away as is required for your calculations to work. I also have no proof that the sun is closer for the flat earth model to work. I'm not proving one or the other, I'm simply pointing out that the same evidence can be used in either model. For all practical purposes it really doesn't matter which model you prefer.

You aren't presenting any proofs whatsoever. You're simply presenting some assertions that you assume no one understands. Fine, if that's what you think, then the burden of proof is upon you to show us that you understand them yourself. You quite obviously have no idea what you're talking about in the first place. Present your arguments, proofs etc.
  • 0

#23
shnarkle

shnarkle

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 284 posts

 I make sundials and I can use a celestial model where the sun moves around a flat plane, or more accurately, a semi-sphere around a point in the middle.  It matters not if the point moves or the sun on the sphere. It's a matter of perspective.  However, when I move a known distance to another location and make a sundial for that location, the solar/stellar positions and movements describe a round earth.


No, they don't. This is pure nonsense. The fact is that you bought their argument without ever questioning their assumptions. Look at the proof again and ask yourself what they are assuming as a given, then ask yourself why you are accepting this in the first place?

And as for which revolves around what stars around earth or vice versa, it does not take much to conclude the earth is rotating -- if stars rotated that fast it would exceed the speed of light


Not if they're just a few thousand miles away. Again, this is child's play. You're just assuming that they're millions of miles away. Ask yourself how it is that if we're all hurtling through space along with the rest of the universe, how come all of those stars that are moving perpendicular to us aren't moving? You can see why all those stars that are moving in the exact opposite direction aren't moving, right? Yet, none of them are changing their distances from each other, why? How about the fact that there has been all of these collisions, yet even though all of these stars are colliding with each other, we never seem to notice any of them moving in any other directions.

and you'd get all sorts of funky images which of course we are not.  But when the earth rotates, it's on a sub-light speed scale and makes more sense.  It's Occam's razor where the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

Then we can all just as easily stick with what we actually see, right? Don't we all see a flat horizon? In fact, I've never seen a curvison ever. Why introduce all of these ideas in the first place when the geocentric flat earth model works just fine? After all, it is the simplest explanation. Look at all those innocent people who were put to death during the Inquisition for disbelieving the geocentric model.

And a round earth and a rotating earth describes a MULTITUDE of observations without having a billion theories for each observation in its place. Another excellent example is Keplers Law (determining orbital speeds) and axial tilt of the earth going around the sun explains the seasons simply and effectively.


So does a sun that is orbiting between the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer.

On the other hand, when those who believe the sun is going around the earth are asked to explain it, they have the sun going around and around and in and out and up and down like a spiral on a barbershop pole and they can explain the motion perhaps, but fail to state why the sun would move in space in such an odd fashion?


Electro magnetism. It's actually quite simple, and a far better explanation than your far-fetched nonsense ideas of gravity which has never been proven. Electro magnetism explains why everything is moving the way it is quite easily, and it's all quite easily proven as well. We can all quite easily observe electro magnetism without ever having to come up with these silly convoluted theories of gravity.
  • 0

#24
liafailrock

liafailrock

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

OK, let's start with the last statement since this is a lot you answered and let's focus on one thing.  Elctromagnetism.   How does that make the sun go up and down and why not gravity with the earth going around? I can show mathematical proofs using the Kepler's law and spherical trig models to explain the motion.  I don't know if you 'll find that convincing but I am willing to look at your mathematical model for electromagnetism if it's really "quite simple".  Are you up to this?  Just say "yes" and I'll show my mathematical proofs first.  Then, you are required to show yours.  I'm even going first in this deal. Or again, you can even call what you want to prove such as a flat earth model.  Ball's in your court now.


  • 0

My interests include topics such as mathematics, astronomy, biblical prophecy and I am a gnomonist.  I joking call myself "Sir Isaac Newton lite".  My interests are the same as Sir Isaac Newton, who was IMO the greatest theologian.


#25
liafailrock

liafailrock

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

 

I'm not saying the sun needs to be far away and close. I'm pointing out that the flat earth model requires a sun that is much closer, and you have no direct proof that the sun is as far away as is required for your calculations to work. I also have no proof that the sun is closer for the flat earth model to work. I'm not proving one or the other, I'm simply pointing out that the same evidence can be used in either model. For all practical purposes it really doesn't matter which model you prefer.

 

 

I was tempted to answer this point because I DID already answer this for BOTH a near and far sun. And I explained it several times ad nauseum . I just verbally explained the proof.  Here's what I said for all to witness (with emboldened text to point out the critical points):

 

 

If we find a point on earth where the sun is overhead, it's altitude is in direct proportion with the distance traveled, as in the angular measure on a protractor.  For example, if we travel 690 miles and the sun is now 80 degrees elevation, another 690 it will be 70 degrees--- linear.  Now, if the earth was flat and 690 miles gave us 80 degrees, We'd have closer to 71 degrees (70.6).  The error gets greater further out.  A circular distance of 2760 miles yields an altitude of 50 degrees.  On a flat earth this distance yields 54.8 degrees altitude, almost 5 degrees error which is quite noticeable. The sun's elevation is then a function of the cotangent of the distance rather than a linear arc distance. Of course this does not happen.  BTW, to get these figures, the sun needs to be only 3913 miles.  If the sun is much further, even just a million miles, the difference in elevation would not be great at all -- the sun's elevation would be virtually the same on all points of the flat earth. To prove all this is not deep scientific theory.  It's simple geometry/trigonometry to indisputably prove the earth is round.

 

SO we can see I addressed quite adequately a close sun and a distant sun and NEITHER will work for a flat earth model. And this is the conclusion drawn:

 

 

You aren't presenting any proofs whatsoever. You're simply presenting some assertions that you assume no one understands. Fine, if that's what you think, then the burden of proof is upon you to show us that you understand them yourself. You quite obviously have no idea what you're talking about in the first place. Present your arguments, proofs etc.

 

Seriously?  I just did the calculations and gave the verbal answer.  You really have to learn the difference between assertion and calculation-- nobody "asserts" specific numbers.  They are calculated.  And that's right, the burden of proof is on me, so now here's the calculation (and a funny dialog between hypothetical people just to lighten things up):

 

The cotangent in Trigonometry is defined as the ratio between the leg adjacent to the angle when it is considered part of a right triangle and the leg opposite for an acute angle of a right triangle. In a picture it is shown as thus:

c190.gif

 

And the tangent is defined as the reciprocal of cotangent.

 

Now, I'm on a point on a flat earth, in the tropics sipping a cocktail, with the sun directly overhead when I call my astronomer friend 690 miles away.  "What is the elevation of the sun there?".  80 degrees he says.  Thus, How far is the sun? I ask myself. The sun, flat earth with me under it form a right triangle. So the sun's distance:

 

d=690tan(80º)=3913

 

This is where I derived the solar distance from. So now I call my friend twice the distance and I say to myself, I know what the answer will be.  It will now be:

 

since cot(θ)=1380/3913 we take the inverse function

 

cot-1 (1380/3913) = 70.6º (almost 71º )

 

"Hello Ralph, what is the solar altitude at your location--- "70 degrees" he says.  "Hmmm, that's off a tad.  I know.  I'll call my friend on this vast plane 6215 miles from me and the answer will be:

 

cot-1 (6215/3913) = 32.2º

 

"Sorry, it's not 32.2º, the sun is setting" (about zero degrees)

Aha!  I just noticed the altitude decreases linearly with the distance  It sinks 10º every 690 miles.

 

 

So now with this very realistic scenario, this is what I was trying to verbally convey to you sparing the simple calculations. At this point we may not know the shape of the earth yet, but we know that a flat earth model does not work because mathematically you cannot make a (co)tangential function work in a linear fashion.  In reality, the degrees are related to the distance, a sure give-away that we are talking circular surfaces likened to radians (the distance traveled) and degrees (compared to solar altitude).

 

Now with all this, I can show harder math but that is not the point, and indeed one needs no calculus to show the flat earth model does not work.

 

You are not off the hook yet showing an electro-magnetic proof and I'll show my mathematical model displaying the seasons using Kepler's Law and spherical trig to describe the primary motions.

 

 

 

 

 


  • 0

My interests include topics such as mathematics, astronomy, biblical prophecy and I am a gnomonist.  I joking call myself "Sir Isaac Newton lite".  My interests are the same as Sir Isaac Newton, who was IMO the greatest theologian.


#26
Josho

Josho

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 265 posts

I was tempted to answer this point because I DID already answer this for BOTH a near and far sun. And I explained it several times ad nauseum . I just verbally explained the proof.  Here's what I said for all to witness (with emboldened text to point out the critical points):

 

 

SO we can see I addressed quite adequately a close sun and a distant sun and NEITHER will work for a flat earth model. And this is the conclusion drawn:

 

 

Seriously?  I just did the calculations and gave the verbal answer.  You really have to learn the difference between assertion and calculation-- nobody "asserts" specific numbers.  They are calculated.  And that's right, the burden of proof is on me, so now here's the calculation (and a funny dialog between hypothetical people just to lighten things up):

 

The cotangent in Trigonometry is defined as the ratio between the leg adjacent to the angle when it is considered part of a right triangle and the leg opposite for an acute angle of a right triangle. In a picture it is shown as thus:

c190.gif

 

And the tangent is defined as the reciprocal of cotangent.

 

Now, I'm on a point on a flat earth, in the tropics sipping a cocktail, with the sun directly overhead when I call my astronomer friend 690 miles away.  "What is the elevation of the sun there?".  80 degrees he says.  Thus, How far is the sun? I ask myself. The sun, flat earth with me under it form a right triangle. So the sun's distance:

 

 

d=690tan(80º)=3913

 

This is where I derived the solar distance from. So now I call my friend twice the distance and I say to myself, I know what the answer will be.  It will now be:

 

since cot(θ)=1380/3913 we take the inverse function

 

cot-1 (1380/3913) = 70.6º (almost 71º )

 

"Hello Ralph, what is the solar altitude at your location--- "70 degrees" he says.  "Hmmm, that's off a tad.  I know.  I'll call my friend on this vast plane 6215 miles from me and the answer will be:

 

 

cot-1 (6215/3913) = 32.2º

 

"Sorry, it's not 32.2º, the sun is setting" (about zero degrees)

Aha!  I just noticed the altitude decreases linearly with the distance  It sinks 10º every 690 miles.

 

 

So now with this very realistic scenario, this is what I was trying to verbally convey to you sparing the simple calculations. At this point we may not know the shape of the earth yet, but we know that a flat earth model does not work because mathematically you cannot make a (co)tangential function work in a linear fashion.  In reality, the degrees are related to the distance, a sure give-away that we are talking circular surfaces likened to radians (the distance traveled) and degrees (compared to solar altitude).

 

Now with all this, I can show harder math but that is not the point, and indeed one needs no calculus to show the flat earth model does not work.

 

You are not off the hook yet showing an electro-magnetic proof and I'll show my mathematical model displaying the seasons using Kepler's Law and spherical trig to describe the primary motions.

So how many degrees does the sun decrease linearly from the summit of Mt Everest every 690 miles, would it be more than 10º or less than 10º?


  • 0

#27
liafailrock

liafailrock

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

So how many degrees does the sun decrease linearly from the summit of Mt Everest every 690 miles, would it be more than 10º or less than 10º?

 Not sure what you are asking.  But the topography of the earth does not matter as the solar altitude is measured from the average surface of the earth.  The normal vector of this surface is called the zenith (straight overhead) and is basically the same direction as gravity.  This average surface  is what surveyors use for land area.  An acre is approximately 210 x 210 feet.  But if you are unfortunate enough to live on a 45 degree hill and measure 210 x 210, due to the angle you'll have closer to 0.7 of an acre actual despite the measurements. And to prove my point, when you stand on your property, you are not perpendicular to the ground but at a 45 degree angle to it.  The zenith is the same for a hill or a flat ocean.  So,considering various angles of the surface of the earth for Mt Everest does not change the solar angle relative the earth, but just on the local piece of land that you are on.  


Edited by liafailrock, 21 March 2017 - 05:57 PM.

  • 0

My interests include topics such as mathematics, astronomy, biblical prophecy and I am a gnomonist.  I joking call myself "Sir Isaac Newton lite".  My interests are the same as Sir Isaac Newton, who was IMO the greatest theologian.


#28
Josho

Josho

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 265 posts

Not sure what you are asking.  But the topography of the earth does not matter as the solar altitude is measured from the average surface of the earth.  The normal vector of this surface is called the zenith (straight overhead) and is basically the same direction as gravity.  This average surface  is what surveyors use for land area.  An acre is approximately 210 x 210 feet.  But if you are unfortunate enough to live on a 45 degree hill and measure 210 x 210, due to the angle you'll have closer to 0.7 of an acre actual despite the measurements. And to prove my point, when you stand on your property, you are not perpendicular to the ground but at a 45 degree angle to it.  The zenith is the same for a hill or a flat ocean.  So,considering various angles of the surface of the earth for Mt Everest does not change the solar angle relative the earth, but just on the local piece of land that you are on.


Ah I see, well you basically answered it, so elevation above sea level doesn't matter, when measuring solar attitude, and that's how real estates get a measurement for x number of acres for a property, so we have a property in the bush that's sloping on an angle, the property size is around 1400m2 but it would be more like 1600m2 if the land was flat.
  • 0

#29
liafailrock

liafailrock

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Ah I see, well you basically answered it, so elevation above sea level doesn't matter, when measuring solar attitude, and that's how real estates get a measurement for x number of acres for a property, so we have a property in the bush that's sloping on an angle, the property size is around 1400m2 but it would be more like 1600m2 if the land was flat.

You got the right idea, elevation does not affect solar altitude as say, 28 degrees N. Latitude will see the same sun and stars at sea level as in an airplane 6 miles high or the top of Mount Everest.  As for the land area it's the other way around, tho, with the area, a sloped area will give the impression that there's MORE area than flat.  (Now with respect to the earth, when I say flat, I of course mean the tangential line to the surface. Mathematically speaking, a very small circular arc can be approximated and appears as a flat line to us little specks on this vast surface.)

 

As to the slope of the land, an example of this mathematical concept is the Great Pyramid.  If we take the area of the 4 triangular sides, we see they are greater than the surface area the whole pyramid sits on.   The sloped surface areas are over 21 acres, but the pyramid sits on a little over 13 acres of land.  So we don't say the Great Pyramid is something like 21.5 acres in area, even though that is the actual area of the structure itself, but 13.  Actually, this does not have much to do with a flat vs round or whatever shape earth one is discussing because even Mount Everest is a pimple on a very large surface and overall does not affect the general shape of whatever earth  we are talking about.  A carpet can have a lump in it, but the floor is still "flat" and that means nothing to the shape of the house -- this is getting a bit off topic.


  • 0

My interests include topics such as mathematics, astronomy, biblical prophecy and I am a gnomonist.  I joking call myself "Sir Isaac Newton lite".  My interests are the same as Sir Isaac Newton, who was IMO the greatest theologian.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users