Why do some rare Christians think the world is flat?

[liafailrock]

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

 

[shnarkle]

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.

 

[shnarkle]

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.

 

[liafailrock]

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.

 

[liafailrock]

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:

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.

 

[Josho]

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:

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?

 

[liafailrock]

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.

 

[Josho]

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.

 

[liafailrock]

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.

 

[twinc]

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.

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.


all this much ado about a misinterpretation that the earth was flat but is not now flat - everything including the earth itself was created very good viz flat/level/even/smooth etc - twinc

 

[bbyrd009]

liafailrock, i'm curious how you might address that Omega (<, >, or = 1) is the scientific standard for approaching whether the earth is actually "flat" or not, regardless of our perceptions? ty

 

[liafailrock]

liafailrock, i'm curious how you might address that Omega (<, >, or = 1) is the scientific standard for approaching whether the earth is actually "flat" or not, regardless of our perceptions? ty

You want to rephrase your question, please? I'm not sure what you are asking.

 

[bbyrd009]

You want to rephrase your question, please? I'm not sure what you are asking.

well i guess that all has more to do with whether the universe is "flat" or not, wherein Omega=1. Not sure if those are the same question to a physicist or not though. We know Omega is very close to 1, but i guess it hasn't been verified. Or can't be, or something.

 

[bbyrd009]

 

[bbyrd009]

https://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/hyperboloid.gif

the point here--i think--being that we perceive earth from the perspective of the orange plastic.