Flat Earth Theory

[talons]

As far as personal testimony and gravity goes, I have seen saucer craft and unknown orbs in the sky on different occasions. I have witnessed both floating and zig-zagging. The zig-zagging had immediate and precise trajectory change with no slow-down, even going from forward to backward immediately. The zig-zagging seemed obviously impossible. I figure it was either anti-gravity somehow, or gravity does not exist the way the presumptuous tell us it is.

Have you considered the craft and orbs you have seen are of the spirit realm ? I am going to guess but you did not hear any sound from the craft or the orbs , am I right ?

 

[Rudometkin]

Have you considered the craft and orbs you have seen are of the spirit realm ? I am going to guess but you did not hear any sound from the craft or the orbs , am I right ?

Right, no sounds that I perceived. Two of the three instances were definitely very close encounters, close enough that you would hear sound if it was a helicopter or airplane for example. Yes, I have considered it to be spiritual. But I saw a physical craft slowly rising with circular-bound lights. Or at least it perfectly portrayed itself to be physical.

 

[Adventageous]

In your model, where is the moon located? A rough estimate in miles/kilometers would be fine (even a range if you do not know exactly).

Is it under a dome, within Earth atmosphere?
Is it just beyond a dome, outside of Earth atmosphere?
Is it within Earth atmosphere with no dome?
Is it just beyond Earth atmosphere with no dome?
Is it 238,855 miles (384,400 kilometers) away from Earth in a vacuum (far beyond Earth atmosphere)?

I am asking if you can always see the moon (when full), and what happens as it approaches the horizon, and / or interacts with the horizon. What does the shape of the moon do in your viewing of it from apex/zenith/overhead through its movement as in relation to the horizon?

@Shalomhalom

What I am asking, in last question, visually represented:



Which do you see during a full moon, even with using your telescope? (please excuse my Microsoft Paint quick job)

 

[Button]

The Earth is flat and gravity is a myth.

 

[Adventageous]

I have updated the listing, still looking for any additional words that I may have missed in the common discussions of the subject. - Flat Earth Theory

 

[Button]

 

[Rudometkin]

View attachment 77750

This is the kind of thing people could be doing to discredit the flat earth society.

Of course it's fun and games, but why is it we seem to see too much earth too far?

 

[Rudometkin]

@Shalomhalom

What I am asking, in last question, visually represented:

View attachment 77735

Which do you see during a full moon, even with using your telescope? (please excuse my Microsoft Paint quick job)

It seems logical that you would see the bottom scenario on a flat earth, depending how high the moon is above the earth. Because the top descends to the center line (horizon), and the bottom raises to the center line. I think this is demonstrable. Look at a long stretch of flat road. According to perspective, the road goes up. Vice versa for what is higher.

So if you are suggesting a flat earth would show the moon as the top scenario, then you are perhaps incorrectly assuming the moon would be higher above the earth than it really is.

 

[Button]

This is the kind of thing people could be doing to discredit the flat earth society.

Of course it's fun and games, but why is it we seem to see too much earth too far?

If the Earth were flat,the sun would shine on every part of it all the time.

 

[Rudometkin]

If the Earth were flat,the sun would shine on every part of it all the time.

Not necessarily.

In order to give this subject fair consideration, you should consider the possible scales of the sun and earth.

In order for the earth to be flat with day/night cycles, the sun would almost certainly have to be much smaller than what we are told. This could produce a spotlight effect over the earth.

Surely you're assuming a heliocentric model sun and using it to refute the geocentric model. This shows you are not considering the validity of the geocentric model on its own terms.

If you double down and affirm the heliocentric model sun, then you're pretty much begging the question - assuming the very thing that is in question. Can you yourself prove the size of the sun without relying on other's work?

It's important we all remain honest about where our knowledge really stands. It's human nature to operate off ego - inflated sense of self - especially having an inflated sense of knowledge. You can have fun pointing and laughing while you hide behind NASA, for example, but things get really interesting once you realize how little you actually know.

 

[Button]

Not necessarily.

In order to give this subject fair consideration, you should consider the possible scales of the sun and earth.

In order for the earth to be flat with day/night cycles, the sun would almost certainly have to be much smaller than what we are told. This could produce a spotlight effect over the earth.

Surely you're assuming a heliocentric model sun and using it to refute the geocentric model. This shows you are not considering the validity of the geocentric model on its own terms.

If you double down and affirm the heliocentric model sun, then you're pretty much begging the question - assuming the very thing that is in question. Can you yourself prove the size of the sun without relying on other's work?

Do you believe the heliocentric model is correct?

 

[Adventageous]

It seems logical that you would see the bottom scenario on a flat earth, depending how high the moon is above the earth. Because the top descends to the center line (horizon), and the bottom raises to the center line. I think this is demonstrable. Look at a long stretch of flat road. According to perspective, the road goes up. Vice versa for what is higher.

So if you are suggesting a flat earth would show the moon as the top scenario, then you are perhaps incorrectly assuming the moon would be higher above the earth than it really is.

I am hoping to show by the two images the two differing views one would see depending on the flatness or curvature of earth. The top can only represent a flat earth. The bottom can only represent a curved earth.

In a flat earth scenario, the moon cannot ever (ever) go below the horizon line (not speaking about jutting mountains, but flat horizon), since the moon would be above that horizon at all (all) times, no matter the distance to the moon (near or far). Simply model it on a PC, or on a Diorama. The moon's appearance would only (only) appear to become smaller and smaller as it moves through the 'sky' (under a dome, outside a dome, etc, doesn't really matter). The same would also apply to sun, clouds, and other celestial bodies.

In a curved earth scenario, the moon will entirely go behind the horizon line (and become less than whole in sight), and not look as it if simply disappears in wholeness as it moves away from the viewer.

The two scenarios cannot represent both positions. They can only be represented by one position above. A simple PC / diorama recreation of a flat earth with moon above (at any distance chosen by the programmer) and have it circling in any manner of pattern, from singular (in a single track) to inner and outer tracks rotations (seaonsal, tropics). Then do the same for a globular model. Add the camera angle at horizon level, and simply view the results. Of course, attempting to scale the model as much as possible will only increase the end-result to a better representational model.

 

[Rudometkin]

Do you believe the heliocentric model is correct?

No. I don't know which model is correct. The heliocentric model seems ridiculous, and people who blindly believe in it should be embarrassed. But also ridiculous things exist.

It seems the heliocentric model depends on many extremely 'convenient' things in order to make it work. 'convenient', as in, "Your senses do not affirm X, but X is really what is happening.... we are claiming..."

For example, if we (our solar system) are traveling through space at the speed of 514,000mph as they claim we are, then we should see the stars appear to change distance relative to each other. But after apparently (hundreds of) centuries, based on claims and historical accounts of star formations, our view of the stars has not made any noticable change. The internet says this:

"The Big Dipper has been recognized for thousands of years, with its stars forming a recognizable pattern for at least 32,000 years. Despite the stars' movements, the shape of the Big Dipper has remained similar enough for people to identify it throughout history."

Of course the convenient claim is that the stars are so far away, we cannot and will not notice any difference in our lifetimes. It is out of our reach. Is this true? Or is it astronomical gaslighting?

It is calculated that after 32,000 years of traveling 514,000 miles per hour, we will have traveled 144.8 trillion miles. Now, it is calculated that the average distance between stars themselves is 44.1 trillion miles.

We can deduce from what we are told, that earth was able to see the Big Dipper Star Formation 32,000 years ago, and then after traveling 144.8 trillion miles, which is 328% the average distance between stars themselves, we can still see the Big Dipper Star Formation. Of course this just is playing with their own math they happily provided. We don't notice any movement of the fixed stars relative to each other at all.

That is not to mention Polaris, the North star, remaining still according to our view. Every night during the alleged movement.

This astronomical issue is one convenient claim for the heliocentric model.

There are others. Such as being on a wobbling, spinning earth, yet not sensing wobble or spin through our balance. Trees remain still, except through occasional wind that disappears at times. The convenient claim here is that we don't feel it, somehow partially due to gravity, something we seem to not be able to truly test ourselves at that scale to justify that claim. We do not see dust orbiting a bowling ball. Of course it is convenient for the heliocentric model that we would not see this. It is out of our reach.

People who do not think deeply into the subject affirm, "Look, we see things fall down! Therefore, gravity!" As if seeing things fall down automatically explains the reason why things are falling down. They see one aspect of the claim, and presume everything else about the claim is therefore true.

There are surely more "convenience" claims that I am not touching on.

But perhaps the smoking gun against the heliocentric model is the issue of seeing too much earth from the ground, and not enough earth from space. Part of the infamous heliocentric model is the globe earth model. It has been calculated that there are 8 inches of earth curvature per square mile. However, it is repeatedly said and evidently demonstrated that we see no curvature over long stretches where we should be seeing curvature, and we can see things that should be hidden by the curvature of the earth. Also, the things we do see from far away, such as towers, should appear to lean away from us due to curvature, however there seems to be no evidence of this, either.

On the matter of space, there is one picture of earth NASA claims is a real photo, but that has video evidence that it was faked. Then, other pictures of earth are evidently admittedly artist interpretations, or "stitched together" by a collection of satellite images. Obvious, likely explanations for these shortcomings are that they cannot reach space as they say they can, or that the earth is not really a globe, or both. Also, under these scenarios, it makes sense NASA would not make many claims to having actual earth photos, because the faked imagery would be subject to crumble under scrutiny by even loyal NASA followers.

It seems more obvious that the earth is flat and stationary, and the stars turn overhead. If you approach the subject logically from your own position without trusting other people, what do you find? Of course, you will not even do this, unless the Lord blesses you enough to be honest with yourself on the subject. The heart is deceitful above all things.

The logical position here is to deduce what you can from God's Word first, and be logically skeptical of the rest. Do I know whether earth is flat or globe? I'd have to take someone's word for it either way.

This is just a tip of the iceberg. But people would rather post pictures of hotdog earth.

 

[Button]

No. I don't know which model is correct. The heliocentric model seems ridiculous, and people who blindly believe in it should be embarrassed. But also ridiculous things exist.

It seems the heliocentric model depends on many extremely 'convenient' things in order to make it work. 'convenient', as in, "Your senses do not affirm X, but X is really what is happening.... we are claiming..."

For example, if we (our solar system) are traveling through space at the speed of 514,000mph as they claim we are, then we should see the stars appear to change distance relative to each other. But after apparently (hundreds of) centuries, based on claims and historical accounts of star formations, our view of the stars has not made any noticable change. The internet says this:



Of course the convenient claim is that the stars are so far away, we cannot and will not notice any difference in our lifetimes. It is out of our reach. Is this true? Or is it astronomical gaslighting?

It is calculated that after 32,000 years of traveling 514,000 miles per hour, we will have traveled 144.8 trillion miles. Now, it is calculated that the average distance between stars themselves is 44.1 trillion miles.

We can deduce from what we are told, that earth was able to see the Big Dipper Star Formation 32,000 years ago, and then after traveling 144.8 trillion miles, which is 328% the average distance between stars themselves, we can still see the Big Dipper Star Formation. Of course this just is playing with their own math they happily provided. We don't notice any movement of the fixed stars relative to each other at all.

That is not to mention Polaris, the North star, remaining still according to our view. Every night during the alleged movement.

This astronomical issue is one convenient claim for the heliocentric model.

There are others. Such as being on a wobbling, spinning earth, yet not sensing wobble or spin through our balance. Trees remain still, except through occasional wind that disappears at times. The convenient claim here is that we don't feel it, somehow partially due to gravity, something we seem to not be able to truly test ourselves at that scale to justify that claim. We do not see dust orbiting a bowling ball. Of course it is convenient for the heliocentric model that we would not see this. It is out of our reach.

People who do not think deeply into the subject affirm, "Look, we see things fall down! Therefore, gravity!" As if seeing things fall down automatically explains the reason why things are falling down. They see one aspect of the claim, and presume everything else about the claim is therefore true.

There are surely more "convenience" claims that I am not touching on.

But perhaps the smoking gun against the heliocentric model is the issue of seeing too much earth from the ground, and not enough earth from space. Part of the infamous heliocentric model is the globe earth model. It has been calculated that there are 8 inches of earth curvature per square mile. However, it is repeatedly said and evidently demonstrated that we see no curvature over long stretches where we should be seeing curvature, and we can see things that should be hidden by the curvature of the earth. Also, the things we do see from far away, such as towers, should appear to lean away from us due to curvature, however there seems to be no evidence of this, either.

On the matter of space, there is one picture of earth NASA claims is a real photo, but that has video evidence that it was faked. Then, other pictures of earth are evidently admittedly artist interpretations, or "stitched together" by a collection of satellite images. Obvious, likely explanations for these shortcomings are that they cannot reach space as they say they can, or that the earth is not really a globe, or both. Also, under these scenarios, it makes sense NASA would not make many claims to having actual earth photos, because the faked imagery would be subject to crumble under scrutiny by even loyal NASA followers.

This is just a tip of the iceberg. But people would rather post pictures of hotdog earth.

Where does sun light come from?

Why are there sun rise and sun sets occurring all over the world?

 

[Rudometkin]

Where does sun light come from?

The sun.

Why are there sun rise and sun sets occurring all over the world?

Because the sun moves.

 

[Adventageous]

For example, if we (our solar system) are traveling through space at the speed of 514,000mph as they claim we are,

Relative to what? Speed (mph) is just calculated motion relative to something else. Since everyone on the earth is (essentially, minus or plus negligible factors) moving at the same speed & velocity (with additional rotational speed / velocity also a factor) as the earth, why would any such number (small or large) make any difference? Even if the earth were moving at 2 mph through the 'vacuum' (with all of its electrical forces, &c) of 'space', why would it be any different at 514,000 mph?

If an occupant is seated in a vehicle at ground (sea) level (essentially 0 ft / m elevation), in a near frictionless vacuum-like environment and that vehicle is travelling in a direction (straight, circular, etc) at 2 mph or even higher speed or velocity (say like an airplane at 35,000 ft, going say 550 mph) what is the occupants' experience? Essentially, 0 mph, since the occupant is travelling at the same rate of speed / velocity as the vehicle they are in. Now if the occupant were travelling in a lengthier vehicle (say like a long trailer) and were able to freely move about the trailer, and run back and forth along its length or from side to side, they would be travelling at variable speeds, in either plus, minus or neutral speeds / velocities depending on which way they were running along the inside of that vehicle. So if the trailer were moving at 2mph, and the occupant at first standing still inside (is also moving 2mph relative to ground (sea) level, but 0mph relative to the trailer), and then begins to accelerate to run forward in the direction of the velocity of the trailer, say at an additional 1mph, then the occupant is travelling 3mph relative to ground (sea) level, and only 1mph relative to the trailer flooring. Such numbers would change depending on whether they ran back, side to side, etc. Even jumping up and down inside of the trailer would not produce any real noticeable difference in speed / velocities unless another element were involved such as a high speed friction fan, or resistance, etc.

Simply throwing out a large number, does not really mean anything in relative speeds / velocities, especially in such environments as under discussion.

then we should see the stars appear to change distance relative to each other.

All heavenly bodies are moving, even circling the throne of Deity (but not to get too deep at the moment, one may leave out this part). Additionally, the distances are so vast from the point of viewing (earth) it is essentially negligible (talking like multiples of .0's), and definitely not discernable to the naked eye, though stars in the heavens do indeed move relative to earth. This is well documented. Closer 'stars' (planets reflecting the light of the sun) are also observed moving about (retorgrade motion, etc).

 

[Adventageous]

The sun.

Because the sun moves.

Yes, it does in its own little way, and from viewpoint of the viewer, but the important question is, does it move like the top image or like the bottom one (simply swap out moon for sun).

Flat Earth Theory

As far as personal testimony and gravity goes, I have seen saucer craft and unknown orbs in the sky on different occasions. I have witnessed both floating and zig-zagging. The zig-zagging had immediate and precise trajectory change with no slow-down, even going from forward to backward...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Adventageous]

On the matter of space, there is one picture of earth NASA claims is a real photo

This is a non-sequitur to the actual shape, size, speed, velocity, motion, &c. of the earth. It doesn't really matter if NASA is deceptive in its photo or not. There are plenty of other non-NASA, non-Govt. related images, video. Even if there were not a single image or video, irrespective of whom such might come from in the first place, this still would not be needful in understanding the actual shape, size, speed, velocity, motion of the earth. It is a category error to continually refer back to NASA (whether for or against, true or false). All it (bringing it up) does is simply muddies the discussion.

As a sort of p.s. to this thing about 'deception', as what some call 'deception' is actually a matter of need in relating to things at close range with massive volume / girth in imaging them. For instance, if we take a 'high altitude' (still within LEO, UEA bounds) image of the earth and make the same ratio (distance, size, &c.) for taking a picture of say a large mega-structure building, like Burj Khalifa (or even something a bit smaller, say the Disney World 'gray ball'), wouldn't multiple photographs need to be taken at differing angles and stitched together to get the image to somewhat resemble the actual thing?

 

[Rudometkin]

Relative to what?

Relative to reality as they claim it. 514,000mph. We can say that does not really mean anything as a speed, but if it is true, then it matters for something, as the truth matters.

514,000 mph is the claim. My point for bringing up the speed is to reveal the extremely large velocities we are said to be dealing with. Then, in order to maintain consistency, it must be claimed the stars are likewise extremely large and extremely far away. All this needs to be said in order to (potentially gaslight) explain to people that this is the reason we cannot test with our basic senses what they are saying. It's out of reach for the human senses. This is convenient in helping to make their model as irrefutable as possible.

I figure it would be silly to teach people the planet moves at an actual speed of 514,000mph, and then downplay it when they make a point to address it.

Speed (mph) is just calculated motion relative to something else. Since everyone on the earth is moving at the same speed & velocity (with additional rotational speed / velocity also a factor) as the earth, why would any such number (small or large) make any difference? Even if the earth were moving at 2 mph through the 'vacuum' (with all of its electrical forces, &c) of 'space', why would it be any different at 514,000 mph?

You say vacuum. I'm not convinced of a space vacuum. Why should I be?

But, I have considered your point. Upon consideration, I found that you have introduced yet another convenience argument for the heliocentric model. The vacuum theory.

If an occupant is seated in a vehicle at ground (sea) level (essentially 0 ft / m elevation), in a near frictionless vacuum-like environment and that vehicle is travelling in a direction (straight, circular, etc) at 2 mph or even higher speed or velocity (say like an airplane at 35,000 ft, going say 550 mph) what is the occupants' experience? Essentially, 0 mph, since the occupant is travelling at the same rate of speed / velocity as the vehicle they are in. Now if the occupant were travelling in a lengthier vehicle (say like a long trailer) and were able to freely move about the trailer, and run back and forth along its length or from side to side, they would be travelling at variable speeds, in either plus, minus or neutral speeds / velocities depending on which way they were running along the inside of that vehicle. So if the trailer were moving at 2mph, and the occupant at first standing still inside (is also moving 2mph relative to ground (sea) level, but 0mph relative to the trailer), and then begins to accelerate to run forward in the direction of the velocity of the trailer, say at an additional 1mph, then the occupant is travelling 3mph relative to ground (sea) level, and only 1mph relative to the trailer flooring. Such numbers would change depending on whether they ran back, side to side, etc. Even jumping up and down inside of the trailer would not produce any real noticeable difference in speed / velocities unless another element were involved such as a high speed friction fan, or resistance, etc.

This is built on the convenient vacuum presupposition which further demonstrates my point of convenience the heliocentric model is built on.

I do not intend to frustrate. Yes, it could be true. But it is yet another highly convenient explain-away for the heliocentric model, which is my general point.

Simply throwing out a large number, does not really mean anything in relative speeds / velocities, especially in such environments as under discussion.

Of course, as the environment is said to be a vacuum.

All heavenly bodies are moving, even circling the throne of Deity (but not to get too deep at the moment, one may leave out this part).

I appreciate you for your coherent attention to detail on little things like this, explaining whether parts of your message are necessary. A little bit of care in a message can go a long way, and I appreciate that.

Additionally, the distances are so vast from the point of viewing (earth) it is essentially negligible (talking like multiples of .0's), and definitely not discernable to the naked eye...

Thank you for supporting my point of the convenience factor.

...though stars in the heavens do indeed move relative to earth. This is well documented.

Well, I know it's claimed.

Closer 'stars' (planets reflecting the light of the sun) are also observed moving about (retorgrade motion, etc).

Not by me as far as I know.

 

[Rudometkin]

This is a non-sequitur to the actual shape, size, speed, velocity, motion, &c. of the earth. It doesn't really matter if NASA is deceptive in its photo or not. There are plenty of other non-NASA, non-Govt. related images, video. Even if there were not a single image or video, irrespective of whom such might come from in the first place, this still would not be needful in understanding the actual shape, size, speed, velocity, motion of the earth. It is a category error to continually refer back to NASA (whether for or against, true or false). All it (brining it up) does is simply muddies the discussion.

In an informal way, it is an attack on the heliocentric model to reveal that it lacks evidence.

I can say NASA lacks convincing photographic evidence of the globe earth model, and you can say I'm being logically fallacious. But I am not trying to disprove the globe earth model by appealing to lack of evidence. I did not conclude anywhere in that message that it was therefore not true.

I am putting it under scrutiny. To make a case where it lacks evidence is logically fine.

You say it muddies up discussion, but it actually can bring a lot of clarity. For the people who depend on NASA for their understanding of the earth shape, this can ground them by revealing NASA to them. This way they can perhaps stick to more relevant ways to discover the shape of the earth. I'm doing a service for truth.