Flat Earth Theory

[Lambano]

 

[Adventageous]

So basically all the scripture that explain the earth and how God created it all have nothing to do with the earth? So if that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, how does it confirm the globe in space? I think its cognitive dissonance here.

I agree with you about "cognitive dissonance", and you definitely have it by very definition. Please remember I was not the one to bring up yet another non-sequitur to the OP subject of "F.E.", but am merely commenting upon the additional subject you have now brought up. I had asked you to pick a single subject from the listed categories in the previous response, and you simply go down the path of adding yet another category not on the list, and which is (again) not really relevant to the subject of the claim made by the OP of "F.E."

Let's demonstrate this.

"F.E." make the claim that Object B is shaped "flat". No evidence is given for this claim, but only the claim is made. When asked about what evidence does the "F.E." claim to have about Object B's shape, they produce material about "motion", "speed", "velocity", "covering", "Organizations", "persons", not merely of / about Object B, but also of other Objects, such as A, C, D, &c.

I ask the "F.E.":

​

Objects A and C are of shape "spheroid", and close by them is Object B. Object B is not described by shape, only its relative position near to Objects A and C. What is the shape of Object B?​

​

Object A is moving at relative speed / velocity X. Object A is not described by shape, only by its relative motion of speed / velocity of X. What is Object A's shape?​

​

Object B is non-moving relative to Object C, and is without relative speed / velocity, being X=0. Object B & Object C are not described by shape, but only their relative motion (or lack thereof, X=0) of speed / velocity. What is the shape of either Object B or Object C?​

​

Object A went from speed / velocity X, to speed / velocity X-X (=0). Object A is still not described by shape, only by its relative motion (or lack thereof, X=0) of speed / velocity. What is the shape of Object A?​

​

Object A went from speed / velocity X, to speed / velocity -Y (reversal speed / velocity contrary to X). Object A is still not described by shape, only its relative speed / velocity (now - Y) relative to speed / velocity X. What is the shape of Object A?​

​

Object B is immovable, and has never moved at any speed / velocity, and remains at speed / velocity X=0, nor in any given Direction / Vector Y greater or less than 0. Object B is still not described by shape, only by its relative motion (of lack there of, X=0, Y=0). What is the shape of Object B?​

​

Object B has a canopy of shape X. Object B is still not described by shape. What is the shape of Object B?​

​

Object B has a canopy of material / substance X. Object B is still not described by shape. What is the shape of Object B?​

​

Object B is stated to be of shape "$" by Organization X, though Organization X has some faulty / falsified data on occasion. What is the actual shape of Object B?​

​

Person CD has manifested the mental state of Cognitive Dissonance on the subject of Object B. Object B is still not described by shape, only the mental / logical faculties of Person CD has been questioned / raised. What is the shape of Object B?​

Can you see the difference of category now? Can you see what the "F.E." persons are doing in raising all of the other subjects / categories in relation to either the shapes Object A or Object B? They are at a total loss to actually describe / evidence the shape of Object B, which is their primary claim to be able to do.

 

[Button]

 

[Psalm-147:3]

I agree with you about "cognitive dissonance", and you definitely have it by very definition. Please remember I was not the one to bring up yet another non-sequitur to the OP subject of "F.E.", but am merely commenting upon the additional subject you have now brought up. I had asked you to pick a single subject from the listed categories in the previous response, and you simply go down the path of adding yet another category not on the list, and which is (again) not really relevant to the subject of the claim made by the OP of "F.E."

Let's demonstrate this.

"F.E." make the claim that Object B is shaped "flat". No evidence is given for this claim, but only the claim is made. When asked about what evidence does the "F.E." claim to have about Object B's shape, they produce material about "motion", "speed", "velocity", "covering", "Organizations", "persons", not merely of / about Object B, but also of other Objects, such as A, C, D, &c.

I ask the "F.E.":

​

Objects A and C are of shape "spheroid", and close by them is Object B. Object B is not described by shape, only its relative position near to Objects A and C. What is the shape of Object B?​

​

Object A is moving at relative speed / velocity X. Object A is not described by shape, only by its relative motion of speed / velocity of X. What is Object A's shape?​

​

Object B is non-moving relative to Object C, and is without relative speed / velocity, being X=0. Object B & Object C are not described by shape, but only their relative motion (or lack thereof, X=0) of speed / velocity. What is the shape of either Object B or Object C?​

​

Object A went from speed / velocity X, to speed / velocity X-X (=0). Object A is still not described by shape, only by its relative motion (or lack thereof, X=0) of speed / velocity. What is the shape of Object A?​

​

Object A went from speed / velocity X, to speed / velocity -Y (reversal speed / velocity contrary to X). Object A is still not described by shape, only its relative speed / velocity (now - Y) relative to speed / velocity X. What is the shape of Object A?​

​

Object B is immovable, and has never moved at any speed / velocity, and remains at speed / velocity X=0, nor in any given Direction / Vector Y greater or less than 0. Object B is still not described by shape, only by its relative motion (of lack there of, X=0, Y=0). What is the shape of Object B?​

​

Object B has a canopy of shape X. Object B is still not described by shape. What is the shape of Object B?​

​

Object B has a canopy of material / substance X. Object B is still not described by shape. What is the shape of Object B?​

​

Object B is stated to be of shape "$" by Organization X, though Organization X has some faulty / falsified data on occasion. What is the actual shape of Object B?​

​

Person CD has manifested the mental state of Cognitive Dissonance on the subject of Object B. Object B is still not described by shape, only the mental / logical faculties of Person CD has been questioned / raised. What is the shape of Object B?​

Can you see the difference of category now? Can you see what the "F.E." persons are doing in raising all of the other subjects / categories in relation to either the shapes Object A or Object B? They are at a total loss to actually describe / evidence the shape of Object B, which is their primary claim to be able to do.

I believe God's Word and I will continue to do so, no matter what anyone says. God bless you

 

[Button]

I believe God's Word and I will continue to do so, no matter what anyone says. God bless you

Except God never said the Earth is flat.


The term "flat" itself is not a shape, but rather a descriptor related to shapes or surfaces. In geometry and everyday language, "flat" typically means having a level, even surface without curves or bumps.

Explanation:
Flat as a property: When we say something is flat, we mean it lies in a plane or has no curvature. For example, a flat surface like a tabletop is two-dimensional and smooth.
Flat shapes: Shapes that are flat are usually two-dimensional figures such as squares, rectangles, circles, triangles, etc. These shapes lie entirely on a plane.
Flatness vs. shape: Flatness describes the nature of the surface or figure (2D, no height or depth), while shape refers to the outline or form of an object (circle, square, triangle, etc.).
Summary:
"Flat" is not a shape by itself.
It is an attribute describing surfaces or shapes that are two-dimensional and lie in a plane.
Shapes can be flat (2D) or three-dimensional (3D), but "flat" alone does not define a specific shape.
Source: Google AI search, is flat a shape

 

[Psalm-147:3]

Except God never said the Earth is flat.


The term "flat" itself is not a shape, but rather a descriptor related to shapes or surfaces. In geometry and everyday language, "flat" typically means having a level, even surface without curves or bumps.

Explanation:
Flat as a property: When we say something is flat, we mean it lies in a plane or has no curvature. For example, a flat surface like a tabletop is two-dimensional and smooth.
Flat shapes: Shapes that are flat are usually two-dimensional figures such as squares, rectangles, circles, triangles, etc. These shapes lie entirely on a plane.
Flatness vs. shape: Flatness describes the nature of the surface or figure (2D, no height or depth), while shape refers to the outline or form of an object (circle, square, triangle, etc.).
Summary:
"Flat" is not a shape by itself.
It is an attribute describing surfaces or shapes that are two-dimensional and lie in a plane.
Shapes can be flat (2D) or three-dimensional (3D), but "flat" alone does not define a specific shape.
Source: Google AI search, is flat a shape

Of course. You are right. God said its a spinning ball in space and we should trust NASA, because devil worshippers are to be believed over God. You can chose to stay in deception. God bless you

 

[Button]

Of course. You are right. God said its a spinning ball in space and we should trust NASA, because devil worshippers are to be believed over God. You can chose to stay in deception. God bless you

You're not to be taken seriously.
It would be wrong to continue to pay you attention.

Don't invoke God's blessings upon Christians when you imply they are first devil worshippers because they don't believe Satans like that Gods Earth is flat.

Satan's lie is that Earth is flat.

 

[Adventageous]

Of course. You are right. God said its a spinning ball in space and we should trust NASA, because devil worshippers are to be believed over God. You can chose to stay in deception. God bless you

Non-sequiturs again (NASA) and now believers in a globe model earth / world are now "devil worshippers"?

I am beginning to be inclined to agree with "Button", that "You're not to be taken seriously."

I have, on several occasions now, earnestly attempted to engage with you seriously, and concernedly. On each occasion my inquiries go unanswered, my responses are simply ignored or are mocked at, all the while I am being undemonstrably accused of twisting scripture, and told I am under a delusion and now those who adhere to a globe model are "devil worshippers"? That seems a bit extreme.

Are you aware that actual devil-worshippers (as for instance, see Roger Morneau's ex-occult testimony, a Trip into the Supernatural, here -

) do have certain criteria (I did not say "all") correct in their belief systems, just as all false belief / religious systems do? Just because any particular criteria in those systems is actually demonstrated to be incorrect, does not grant the automatic falsification of other criteria in those systems, as each individual criteria must be considered on their own merits. Do not commit the additional logical fallacy of "Throwing out the Baby with the Bathwater". For instance, even "devil worshipers" sing psalms, hymns, and pray. Should we throw those actions out too as false? We should not sing psalms, hymns or pray? "Devil worshippers" kneel and gather on certain days of the week. Should we just throw out kneeling and gathering on certain days of the week as also false just because they do so?

You have several logical fallacies in your replies.

1. Just because the non-sequitur subject organization (NASA) has done some shady things, does not grant that the actual shape of the earth as a spheroid is falsified simply because they believe it is also spheroid. Do not commit the "poisoning the well" fallacy, as if all information that comes from said source is in error automtically or bad (posioned). If I find a criminal who has lied under oath about a particular subject, does that mean that everything they said in testimony was a lie, or is now automatically falsified? No. It may place that person under suspicion, and their testimony questionable (in other words further inquiry to be made), but it does not ever grant that all their testimony is automatically falsified. Each individual piece of testimony is to be considered on their own merits. As for instance, this person, may have stated that they went to a gas station at 9 PM, to have their alibi under oath, and later it was found that they are not on camera at the gas station at 9PM, but rather 10 PM. Do I throw out their testimony that they were at the gas station altogether, or do I simply throw out their incorrect timing, and replace it with the correct timing at the gas station? Location was correct, but the timing needed to be corrected.

2. You also keep deflecting back to what others (assumed) positions are (ie. "You are right. God said its a spinning ball in space ..." and "... we should trust NASA. ..."),, and not actually discussing the OP position, which is "F.E.". Deflection is a sign of a weak position, since it seeks to redirect those engaged with the subject to a differing subject than the one under scrutiny. In other words, its like saying, "I do not want to talk about my position / subject, let's talk about your position / differing subject and how wrong that is". It is subtle NLP misdirection, whether you know it or not, and a tactic used of those who cannot rightly engage on their own position. For instance, for an example of someone deflecting and attempting misdirection, see the woman at the well in conversation with Jesus (Jhn. 4 KJB). This is what you are, and have been, doing. Several have brought up "F.E.'s" lack of evidence, and have provided several good links, documentation, evidence against certain "F.E." positions (such as polar and equatorial circumnavigation, stars location / sightings (Polaris, Orion), &c.), and those things are not engaged with, and only responded by (essentially): 'NASA is a liar' (ignoring every other 'space-agency' there is, and I can list them for you, governmental and private), 'globe is bad model' (only accusation, never demonstrated), 'moon glows on its own' (only stated never demonstrated in evidence), 'globe modelists are devil worshippers' (general blanketing, another fallacy), 'words only have definitions I make up or agree to' (ie. I asked several times for the definition of "level", and never received it once, and asked to speak on other such words like "firmament", &c., thus not addressing actual scriptural, etymological, dictionarial, historical uses), and such like things.

3. Then when asked for specific words (like "firmament", "circle", "level", &c) to consider, or a specific text (that uses the word "fixed", "stable", &c.) the fallacy of "gallop", "steamrolling", occured, in which not a single text to consider, but a litany of textual references that were never looked at, only assumed to supply evidence for your position. If they are not considered in their context and use how is listing even the entire Bible as evidence support for anything? It is not, at all. It is simply trying to hide beneath a metaphorical 'mountain' as the lost do in Revelation. They say to the 'mountain', "Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us." (Hos. 10:8; Luk. 22:30; Rev. 6:16 KJB). Simply attempting to bury oneself under such is not going to protect you or anyone from actual scrutiny. It is a weak position to take, and one, even as Revelation shows, that cannot be defended.

... to be continued ...

 

[Adventageous]

Of course. You are right. God said its a spinning ball in space and we should trust NASA, because devil worshippers are to be believed over God. You can chose to stay in deception. God bless you

... continued ...


4. You attempt to shift the blame and scrutiny from yourself to others, by saying, "because devil worshippers are to be believed over God", when that is not the case at all. Even if devil worshippers were believers in a globe model (not all are by the way, as I pointed out, there are other models believed, such as hollow earth, expanding earth, digital generated earth (ie sim earth), mental earth (its all in the mind of someone), &c) that is no guarantee, or automatic falsification, that globe model is in error. Secondly, who said or agreed to (other than yourself) that devil worshippers are to be believed over God? What kind of unfounded accusation is this? I know of no globe model believer that is a Christian, who worships the LORD God, JEHOVAH Elohiym, that claims they ought to believe devil-worshippers over God. It is a ludicrous and outrageous claim / accusation to make, and one that was not even substantiated by anything other than hubris.

5. Not once have I ever stated that anyone should "trust NASA" (in fact to me, N.A.S.A. means Never Accept Serpent Assertions). I have in fact, on several occasions, stated that NASA is essentially a non-sequitur, and red-herring when it comes to matters of shape of the earth / world. It doesn't matter if NASA said the moon is made of 'green cheese' or combination regolith, or that the world was shaped like a dodecahedron or an oblate spheroid. What an organzation, or individual, states / claims is irrelevant to the actual shape of the world. If I find a person standing on the street, wearing a white coat, claiming to be a doctor, and I ask them what time it is, and they tell me it is 4:30, and I look at the clock on the bank across the street and it is 4:30, and then the kiosk down the street and it reads 4:30, and then ask another person, and they say 4:30, do I have to believe that the original person was a doctor? What if they were a mental patient, or a person going to a party dressing up as a doctor, or were an actor, etc? What do those things have to do with the actual time (4:30)? Nothing. What if that same person was a real doctor, and told me the time was 4:00, when the bank clock across the street said 4:30, and the kiosk just down the road said 4:30, and the next person I asked just after said, 4:30. What time is it? Even if that doctor were wrong about the time, does that mean he is wrong about the rest of his profession / statements? Should he be fired for not getting the time right?

6. Mockery is all fine and well in its proper place, but demonstrable evidence is to be presented that is beyond dispute (see Elijah at Mt. Carmel; 1 Kin. 18:27,30-39 KJB). Mockery for simply mocking, is not evidence for a position, nor evidence against another position - at all (see 2 Kin. 2:23; Job 12:4; Mat. 27:29; &c. KJB). Such actions, again, shows a weakness of position, since it is easier to mock than to demonstrate in proof and discuss the details of that evidence. It is easier to distract with one hand while not showing the other. It's a cheap magicians trick, unworthy of a real substantial position (on anything).

7. Simply saying, "You can choose to stay in deception" is assuming your unsubstantiated position by biased presuppositional a priori. In other words, you are essentially 'arguing in a circle' by starting with your position as true by assumption, not demonstration in evidence, and concluding the opponent in error (and even in a lie, a "deception", which is more complex than merely error, since it includes bad motive / intent), without demonstrating either the positivity of your position or the incorrectness of the other. You are saying, "I am right, you are wrong (and deceived)," but have not actually engaged in any manner of detail.

So, this is the final offer, are you willing to actually engage upon a specific idea, with a specific text in mind, or look at a specific word, in a specific context in scripture or not?

 

[Adventageous]

I believe God's Word and I will continue to do so, no matter what anyone says. ...

So do I. Now what? See how that statement solved nothing between us, or the two (and more) views of the world?

 

[Button]

Not AI.
The rotation of our planet Earth.

 

[Button]

So do I. Now what? See how that statement solved nothing between us, or the two (and more) views of the world?

You notice they keep saying, I believe God's word.
However,God never says in his word the Earth is flat.

Get it?
They're trolling on a whole other level.

 

[Button]

 

[Button]

 

[Button]

Space shuttle Atlantis flyby of the sun.

 

[Button]

LIVE 4K Video of Earth and Space

- YouTube

Thưởng thức video và nhạc bạn yêu thích, tải nội dung do bạn sáng tạo lên và chia sẻ nội dung đó với gia đình, bạn bè cũng như mọi người trên YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Button]

Space Station - LIVE

- YouTube

Thưởng thức video và nhạc bạn yêu thích, tải nội dung do bạn sáng tạo lên và chia sẻ nội dung đó với gia đình, bạn bè cũng như mọi người trên YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Button]

Curvature of globe Earth from the ISS.

 

[Button]

January 29,Nasa receives 10-second signal sent 13 billion years ago​

In a dark control room in Maryland, a dozen scientists lean toward a wall of screens. The air is dry and cold, humming with servers and quiet anxiety. On one monitor, a flat line of noise suddenly ripples, a tiny spike of order in a sea of cosmic static. The room doesn’t erupt. Nobody screams. Just a few whispered “wait, run that again” and a hand that starts to tremble around a coffee cup.


Ten seconds.

A ten‑second signal, buried in data that has traveled for 13 billion years, finally arriving on our small, bright planet.

The 10-second whisper that crossed the universe​

The signal wasn’t a Hollywood-style “ping” from aliens. No one at NASA suddenly saw a perfect binary code spelling out “HELLO HUMAN.” What they saw was stranger, and in some ways deeper. A stitched-together pattern in radio waves, a flash of structured energy that shouldn’t just appear out of nowhere.


Thirteen billion years of travel means this message left when the universe was still a baby, not even a billion years old. Galaxies were clumping together for the first time. Light itself was fighting through the fog of primordial gas. And yet, something out there produced a clear, sharp burst that lasted roughly as long as it takes you to unlock your phone.

Inside NASA’s Goddard and JPL teams, the story started exactly like most cosmic discoveries do: with boredom. Weeks of routine data from space telescopes and radio arrays, files stacked up on remote servers, interns scrolling through what looks like endless static. Then a graduate researcher flagged an odd signature while cross-checking data from a deep-field observation tied to the James Webb Space Telescope.


The pattern was subtle, too structured to be noise, too brief to be a regular pulsar, and arriving from a corner of the sky where nothing especially loud was supposed to be. The team pulled the raw feed, checked timestamps, ran it through filters again and again. Same 10 seconds. Same sharp rise, same graceful fade. One tiny cosmic heartbeat, repeating only in the data and in the minds of the people staring at it.

NASA did what NASA always does: they tried to break their own finding. They blamed satellites first, then interference from Earth, then a miscalibrated sensor. They compared with European and Chilean observatories, checking if anyone else had picked up the same ghostly flare. Several had. Different instruments. Same window of time. Same direction in the sky.


That’s when the conversation shifted. The leading hypothesis now points to a violent event in the early universe, maybe the birth or collision of some of the first black holes or a hyper-energetic burst from a newborn galaxy. **Thirteen billion years of travel stretch and redden any signal**. So what NASA received is probably a distorted echo of something unimaginably powerful, softened and slowed by the expansion of space itself.

How NASA listens for echoes from the beginning of time​

Catching a ten-second signal from that far away isn’t just luck, it’s a kind of extreme craftsmanship. Astronomers spend ages designing “listening campaigns,” pointing arrays of antennas and space telescopes at the same dark patch of sky for days or weeks. They let the universe speak at its own pace. Then they sift.

 

[TLHKAJ]

@Button you actually believe that load of malarkey?? lol