Flat Earth Theory

[talons]

Have you ever aligned a satellite dish to receive TV signal ? If you understand what you have done by doing this you will understand the earth is not flat .

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Have you ever aligned a satellite dish to receive TV signal ?

The flat earthers don't believe in satellites or TV

 

[talons]

The flat earthers don't believe in satellites or TV

We will let them speak and see if they are ready to cross that Rubicon .

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

We will let them speak and see if they are ready to cross that Rubicon

Neh, they think the Rubicon is a figgament of somebody's imagination

 

[ScottA]

What does a green flash at sunset mean...little green men caught putting away the sun for the night?

The green flash at sunset is a rare optical phenomenon where a brief flash of green light appears just as the sun disappears below the horizon, caused by the Earth's atmosphere acting like a prism to separate sunlight, bending shorter wavelengths (like blue and green) more than longer ones (red and orange). With clear air and an unobstructed horizon (often over water), the atmosphere filters out most colors, leaving green visible for a second or two as a final glint, sometimes enhanced by mirages.

 

[David in NJ]

Have you ever aligned a satellite dish to receive TV signal ? If you understand what you have done by doing this you will understand the earth is not flat .

View attachment 77371

View attachment 77372

Have you had WATER in your bathtub without walls to keep the WATER inside the tub? = NEVER

You have no idea of the level of deception this world is under!
All of us have been taught/educated in this world's/age/system by the god of this world/age/system.

 

[TLHKAJ]

This is such a thorough, scriptural teaching on the world you live in. Praise be to God!

 

[Button]

Apparently.

That yankee from New Jersey was claiming if the world was round then the ocean water would float way

He's not only been deceived in to thinking the earth is not a globe but also thinks gravity isn't real.

Lordy.
Thank God breathing is part of the autonomic nervous system.

 

[Adventageous]

WATER is the physics that demonstrate, CLEAR as DAY, that we are not on a ball spinning at 1,000mph
and
Good Morning = the sun travels across the sky for the earth does not move

As previously stated, "WATER" is not "the science" - Flat Earth Theory

"WATER" is also not "the physics", as that makes no sense. As stated "WATER" is a noun to describe a certain created fluidic thing, as previously stated.

I can speak about the physics involved with water if you would like.

Are you aware of the following terms and phenomena?

“Surface Tension”,​

“pinching” (forms water into a sphere),​

“Cohesion”,​

“Hydrogen bonds”,​

"Covalence",​

“Van der Waals force”,​

“Plateau-Rayleigh instability” (aka “Raleigh instability”),​

and even because of certain "hydrophobicity" (water repulsing) of objects, forces ...​

such as "evaporation" (hydrological cycles, "rain"), &c.​

Would you like some experimentation, observation, logic and scripture (not to be last) as well?

In matters of the measureable rotational velocity of the world, have you seen the measured, observed, repeated experimentationally confirmed Mathematical response previously provided?

The earth's rotation is on the order of "0.000696361334927 rpm" - Flat Earth Theory

I am also still awaiting for the definition of "level" that you have been referring to. - Flat Earth Theory

I am not sure why you went from "WATER = the science" and it being the primary reason for your position, to suddenly mentioning two other phenonmena, such as "the sun", and "the earth" ("does not move"). Those three (even four really) things are unrelated in their proper categories. Which did you prefer to discuss? Changing the subject is akin to 'moving the goalpost', 'red-herring', 'conflation' and a few other logical fallacies.

1. the physics of water​

2. the sun (it's location, movement / non movement, it's characteristics (spherical, flat, illusion, &c) and composition (what it is)​

3. the earth (its movement / non-movement, in either axial-rotation, or circumnavigational orbit)​

The earth indeed moves, from scriptural texts to scientific observation, repeated experimentation, and mathematically confirmed by differing peoples in differing parts of the world at differing times. Do you need some of that evidence to consider?

Are we moving away from discussing water, to discussing the earth (land) now?

Have you had WATER in your bathtub without walls to keep the WATER inside the tub? = NEVER

You have no idea of the level of deception this world is under!
All of us have been taught/educated in this world's/age/system by the god of this world/age/system.

"WATER in [a] bathtub" acts (physical interactions; the "physics" as it were) as the water on earth in the deep ocean basins, which are supported on the 'sides' by higher elevations as hills and mountains.

In the beginning (after God created the world; Gen. 1:1), water was over the entire surface of the as of yet unformed earth (Gen. 1;2; as like being a child born in a womb, or a person, baptised, completely immersed; or think like an object of unhandled clay covered in a thin layer of water, ready to be molded by an artist / artists). Then Godhead separates the waters into two primary components (a covering 'sea' beneath, and vapours in heaven (atmosphere) above, with open 'air' in between; Gen. 1:6-8). Then Godhead molded the earth so that a basin (a very large 'bathtub' as it were) appeared, and the waters which covered all the 'land' settled into that basin (Gen. 1:9-10), and the earth (now at differing elevations) acted as 'walls' (higher ground, low hills) containing those waters.

Now, have you ever looked at a 'bathtub' at close observation? The water is curved on its surface, and it is curved in its body to conform to the boundaries which it cannot pass over (unless something occurs in addition, increased water, increased displacement by added mass, removal of pieces of tub, &c.), due to the factors listed above. The ocean/s are also differing than a standard non-interferred 'bathtub' water, due to the external forces of 'tidal' action, elevation, storms, and other earth / land factors, &c. Think of it like a bathtub with a tap turned on, and water is pouring in and the bathtub water is no longer placid, but active, moving, waving, rippling (curving / bending), &c. There are additional factors to consider, involving the earth's present dynamical super-structure (vulcanism, tectonics, frictions, upheavals, subductions, solar, lunar and other planetary relationships (like conjunctions), &c), of which a 'bathtub' does not normally exhibit in everyday function, unless it were built in differing materials and were moveable / warping pieces, and being carried on the back of something also travelling in varied directions.

The real deception going on in the world is the following - The 7th Day The Sabbath - The Rest Of His Eternal Story (by Aaron Earnest) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

However, without assuming your position, you seem to be confusing several unrelated categories:

01. N.A.S.A.​

02. shape of the earth​

03. location of the earth​

04. movement of the earth​

05. location of the sun​

06. shape of the sun​

07. movement of the sun​

08. location of the moon (and possibly, depending, as I am unsure of your present position, the source of its light)​

09. shape of the moon​

10. movement of the moon​

11. location of the 'stars' (local Sol system planets, and beyond Sol-system 'space'; ie Arcturus, Pleiades, &c.)​

12. movement of 'stars'​

13. shape of the 'stars'​

14. water (and even shape thereof)​

15. 'level'​

​

These things are differing categories.

 

[David in NJ]

As previously stated, "WATER" is not "the science" - Flat Earth Theory

"WATER" is also not "the physics", as that makes no sense. As stated "WATER" is a noun to describe a certain created fluidic thing, as previously stated.

I can speak about the physics involved with water if you would like.

Are you aware of the following terms and phenomena?

“Surface Tension”,​

“pinching” (forms water into a sphere),​

“Cohesion”,​

“Hydrogen bonds”,​

"Covalence",​

“Van der Waals force”,​

“Plateau-Rayleigh instability” (aka “Raleigh instability”),​

and even because of certain "hydrophobicity" (water repulsing) of objects, forces ...​

such as "evaporation" (hydrological cycles, "rain"), &c.​

Would you like some experimentation, observation, logic and scripture (not to be last) as well?

In matters of the measureable rotational velocity of the world, have you seen the measured, observed, repeated experimentationally confirmed Mathematical response previously provided?

The earth's rotation is on the order of "0.000696361334927 rpm" - Flat Earth Theory

I am also still awaiting for the definition of "level" that you have been referring to. - Flat Earth Theory

I am not sure why you went from "WATER = the science" and it being the primary reason for your position, to suddenly mentioning two other phenonmena, such as "the sun", and "the earth" ("does not move"). Those three (even four really) things are unrelated in their proper categories. Which did you prefer to discuss? Changing the subject is akin to 'moving the goalpost', 'red-herring', 'conflation' and a few other logical fallacies.

1. the physics of water​

2. the sun (it's location, movement / non movement, it's characteristics (spherical, flat, illusion, &c) and composition (what it is)​

3. the earth (its movement / non-movement, in either axial-rotation, or circumnavigational orbit)​

The earth indeed moves, from scriptural texts to scientific observation, repeated experimentation, and mathematically confirmed by differing peoples in differing parts of the world at differing times. Do you need some of that evidence to consider?

Are we moving away from discussing water, to discussing the earth (land) now?



"WATER in [a] bathtub" acts (physical interactions; the "physics" as it were) as the water on earth in the deep ocean basins, which are supported on the 'sides' by higher elevations as hills and mountains.

In the beginning (after God created the world; Gen. 1:1), water was over the entire surface of the as of yet unformed earth (Gen. 1;2; as like being a child born in a womb, or a person, baptised, completely immersed; or think like an object of unhandled clay covered in a thin layer of water, ready to be molded by an artist / artists). Then Godhead separates the waters into two primary components (a covering 'sea' beneath, and vapours in heaven (atmosphere) above, with open 'air' in between; Gen. 1:6-8). Then Godhead molded the earth so that a basin (a very large 'bathtub' as it were) appeared, and the waters which covered all the 'land' settled into that basin (Gen. 1:9-10), and the earth (now at differing elevations) acted as 'walls' (higher ground, low hills) containing those waters.

Now, have you ever looked at a 'bathtub' at close observation? The water is curved on its surface, and it is curved in its body to conform to the boundaries which it cannot pass over (unless something occurs in addition, increased water, increased displacement by added mass, removal of pieces of tub, &c.), due to the factors listed above. The ocean/s are also differing than a standard non-interferred 'bathtub' water, due to the external forces of 'tidal' action, elevation, storms, and other earth / land factors, &c. Think of it like a bathtub with a tap turned on, and water is pouring in and the bathtub water is no longer placid, but active, moving, waving, rippling (curving / bending), &c. There are additional factors to consider, involving the earth's present dynamical super-structure (vulcanism, tectonics, frictions, upheavals, subductions, solar, lunar and other planetary relationships (like conjunctions), &c), of which a 'bathtub' does not normally exhibit in everyday function, unless it were built in differing materials and were moveable / warping pieces, and being carried on the back of something also travelling in varied directions.

The real deception going on in the world is the following - The 7th Day The Sabbath - The Rest Of His Eternal Story (by Aaron Earnest) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

However, without assuming your position, you seem to be confusing several unrelated categories:

01. N.A.S.A.​

02. shape of the earth​

03. location of the earth​

04. movement of the earth​

05. location of the sun​

06. shape of the sun​

07. movement of the sun​

08. location of the moon (and possibly, depending, as I am unsure of your present position, the source of its light)​

09. shape of the moon​

10. movement of the moon​

11. location of the 'stars' (local Sol system planets, and beyond Sol-system 'space'; ie Arcturus, Pleiades, &c.)​

12. movement of 'stars'​

13. shape of the 'stars'​

14. water (and even shape thereof)​

15. 'level'​

​

These things are differing categories.

As GOD has previously Stated: WATER is the KEY to knowing where and how you stand = Genesis

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Dwell on your Heavenly FATHER's words and pray.

 

[Rudometkin]

However, without assuming your position, you seem to be confusing several unrelated categories:

01. N.A.S.A.​

02. shape of the earth​

03. location of the earth​

04. movement of the earth​

05. location of the sun​

06. shape of the sun​

07. movement of the sun​

08. location of the moon (and possibly, depending, as I am unsure of your present position, the source of its light)​

09. shape of the moon​

10. movement of the moon​

11. location of the 'stars' (local Sol system planets, and beyond Sol-system 'space'; ie Arcturus, Pleiades, &c.)​

12. movement of 'stars'​

13. shape of the 'stars'​

14. water (and even shape thereof)​

15. 'level'​

​

These things are differing categories.

Ah, so when the subject is the shape of the earth, it would be a categorical fallacy to refer to the sun, moon, and stars when trying to disprove flat earth. Thanks.

 

[Rudometkin]

What does a green flash at sunset mean...little green men caught putting away the sun for the night?

The green flash at sunset is a rare optical phenomenon where a brief flash of green light appears just as the sun disappears below the horizon, caused by the Earth's atmosphere acting like a prism to separate sunlight, bending shorter wavelengths (like blue and green) more than longer ones (red and orange). With clear air and an unobstructed horizon (often over water), the atmosphere filters out most colors, leaving green visible for a second or two as a final glint, sometimes enhanced by mirages.

According to @Adventageous this is a category error, as you are appealing to the location of the sun (where it disappears), which is an unrelated category to the shape of the earth category.

 

[Rudometkin]

God doesn't tell us the Earth is flat.


I suggest anyone prone to the myth of flat Earth go so far as to purchase a high quality Telescope with planet,star,map software.

Why point people to the stars, when (as @Adventageous established) the shape, movement, and location of the stars is an unrelated category to the shape of the earth category?

 

[Rudometkin]

Sorry if I misunderstood. You said "from left to right." Of course, if you add the distance you can see when looking to your left to the distance you can see when looking to the right, it will (assuming there are no buildings, mountains or other obstructions) be twice the distance that you you only looked in one direction. Apologies again for misunderstanding.

Hey, it's alright! I appreciate you being here David! Hope you're having a great week!

 

[Rudometkin]

Apple, David run's when he is faced with simple earth logic
eg
If the earth is flat he can't explain why :-
- Canada sees the North Star but Argentina never does
- Cape Horn has over 17 hours daylight today while towns near the Artic have an 1 or 2 at most.
It spins his head around :)

Rmvb, @Adventageous has just established that the location of stars is an unrelated category to the shape of the earth category. So the location of the stars is said to be irrelevant.

 

[Adventageous]

According to @Adventageous this is a category error, as you are appealing to the location of the sun (where it disappears), which is an unrelated category to the shape of the earth category.

I did not say there were not relationships. I was specifically speaking of categories, not relationships. As for instance, when speaking of the category of the shape of the earth, it is unneccesary to appeal to another category, such as water physics, and vice-versa. This does not mean that there is not a relationship between them.

Likewise, when speaking about the 'errors of N.A.S.A.', it is unnecessary to bring in another category. For instance, I have a friend (at least I still consider him a friend), that believes because certain criteria that comes from 'N.A.S.A.' can be proven to be in error, that somehow it automatically validates 'F.E.' and other beliefs. That is category error. The error of the one, does not automatically grant the position of the second.

 

[Rudometkin]

I did not say there were not relationships. I was specifically speaking of categories, not relationships.

So all of a sudden we are starting to talk about how related it all is.

 

[David in NJ]

I did not say there were not relationships. I was specifically speaking of categories, not relationships. As for instance, when speaking of the category of the shape of the earth, it is unneccesary to appeal to another category, such as water physics, and vice-versa. This does not mean that there is not a relationship between them.

Likewise, when speaking about the 'errors of N.A.S.A.', it is unnecessary to bring in another category. For instance, I have a friend (at least I still consider him a friend), that believes because certain criteria that comes from 'N.A.S.A.' can be proven to be in error, that somehow it automatically validates 'F.E.' and other beliefs. That is category error. The error of the one, does not automatically grant the position of the second.

The WATER relationship to the earth directly gives us factual science and confirms God's Word.

Facts and Truth are related.

Skewed 'facts' and LIES are related.

 

[Adventageous]

Why point people to the stars, when (as @Adventageous established) the shape, movement, and location of the stars is an unrelated category to the shape of the earth category?

'Stars' do have a relational aspect to the shape of the world. It is not necessary to appeal to them ('stars'), but they ('stars') can be studied in a secondary way as additional evidence to establish the shape of the world, which can be first demonstrated without the appeal to the category of 'stars'. They are two categories, distinct from one another, but are relational in a way.

This means that consideration of the 'stars' from any location on the world can act as additional evidence, being such as any may witness with the naked eye, that in northern California (Sacramento area) the starfield is differing than the starfield in American Samoa (Ili Ili area). The 'northen star' "Polaris" cannot ever be seen from American Samoa at any time of the year, day or night. Additonally, the constellation 'Orion' appears differingly in the sky than in California. I can go into more detail as needed about that, since I have been in both locations for years at a time.

Do I need the category of stars to originally demonstrate the category of the shape of the earth? No. It is in that sense, that they are distinct unrelated categories. However, it does not mean that they are non-relational entirely.

 

[Adventageous]

So all of a sudden we are starting to talk about how related it all is.

Only in a way. As categories, it is unnecessary to appeal to another category outside of a category. It doesn't mean that one cannot appeal to, but must recognize the shift in category, which then only acts in a secondary manner.