The flat earth

[Eremita]

As already stated, I do quite a bit of flying. Probably more than you do, and I've never noticed the earth to be spherical.

Oh cool, have you ever been as far as the earth's rim? You should fly over and find out what sex Great A'Tuin is, that knowledge could make a man very rich.

[Yeshai]

As already stated, I do quite a bit of flying. Probably more than you do, and I've never noticed the earth to be spherical.

Oh cool, have you ever been as far as the earth's rim? You should fly over and find out what sex Great A'Tuin is, that knowledge could make a man very rich.

The earths rim, (Antartica), as any of the past explorers have said, is hostile, with hostile weather. Flying in such conditions would not be a good idea, especially in a single engine airplane.

[Yeshai]

I have an actual question.

Why?
I looked into it. There are 56 countries that have man-made satellites in orbit, 10 countries with space programs and another 20 private institutes that have satellites. I tried finding out how many picture of earth has been taken from outer space but there are hundreds. Not 1 hundred, several hundreds. In plural.

SO, basically every major government, every major science institute, every large corporation, every board of education is lying to us. This is the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind.
Why?

What's the point of it.

A world-wide conspiracy is not out of the question. Have a look at China's space program https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
And NASA has been proven to fake photographs. Time and again.

What's the point?

Yuri Gagarin, the first human in space. When in space, it is credited to him that he made the following statement, "I looked and I looked but I did not see God".

That's the point. Where can God fit in the universe? Easy answer, there is no God. Everything is at it seems, there is no supernatural. It's materialism. The more science "discovers", the less room there is for God, or anything "paranormal".

[Desecrated]

That's the point. Where can God fit in the universe? Easy answer, there is no God. Everything is at it seems, there is no supernatural. It's materialism. The more science "discovers", the less room there is for God, or anything "paranormal".

That's a pretty puny god then.

[TruthSeeker_]

Yuri Gagarin, the first human in space. When in space, it is credited to him that he made the following statement, "I looked and I looked but I did not see God".

That's the point. Where can God fit in the universe? Easy answer, there is no God. Everything is at it seems, there is no supernatural. It's materialism. The more science "discovers", the less room there is for God, or anything "paranormal".

I actually disagree. In the last fifty years, science has made some mind blowing discoveries. Quantum physics is one of them. I think it's the materialists who are struggling to hold on to their worldview. Consciousness will be the next revolution. Where does God fits in all this a personal question to each individual but the fine-tuning argument bothers physicists. The Universe clearly appears to be designed.

[fraterai]

When you learn how compartmentalized the government is it's pretty easy to accept that most of it runs on auto pilot, including doctoring pictures. Why? Who knows. But the earth is definitely a sphere. If you are really losing sleep over this, go work with a land surveyor for a day

http://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html

Secondly, radio waves are also some pretty easy to understand science that will prove the earth is round.

[Desecrated]

Secondly, radio waves are also some pretty easy to understand science that will prove the earth is round.

Radio waves works on a flat earth as well.
It would work even better because you wouldn't need satellites.

[fraterai]

Certainly you can draw some image that would support why your radio wave propagation works on flat earth. But I'm talking about real life. Are all the engineers working with line of site propagation every day, and again, the land surveyors that deal with this daily, are they all in on it? Further, are you somehow smarter than these trained, experienced, individuals that have been "duped" somehow by "fake" math equations and "optical illusions"? Sure, if their experiments and devices didn't work all the time.

Also, the earth isn't PERFECTLY round, which is why the Bedford numbers are approximations

[chowderpope]

TL;DR

You'd have to be extremely high to think the Earth is flat. I literally can't even.

[cactusjack543]

no higher then present moment of existence )....

[Yeshai]

Towards the beginning of this topic, I heard "To prove the earth is round you just need to fly in an air plane". Then I revealed I was a pilot.

Now you are saying I should talk to an engineer. Have a look: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015 ... earth.html

It's 2016, and we still do not have an actual photo of the earth in it's entirety.
NASA has shown us pictures of the globe, but every one of them are stitched together "strips" of the earth. Robert Simmon, data visualizer and designer ( of the "Blue Marble" ) said "It's photoshopped, but it has to be"

[Yeshai]

TL;DR

You'd have to be extremely high to think the Earth is flat. I literally can't even.

I admit, it's difficult to get over a lifetime of indoctrination.

[fraterai]

can you talk to us about your direct experience with the horizon being a pilot, any personal sort of experiences that may lead you to believe one way or the other? I am trusting science on this one in my day to day but I never fully commit to any theory without proving it to myself, I'd rather hear about people's real experiences with these phenomena, such as those that deal with the problem of the horizon on a day to day. Thanks for the interesting topic and input

[cactusjack543]

iam but many things like master of the big bang box, ruler of existence neo i am legioned to mention some i ponder promotion savior bots lolol list goes i travel past hell to lost religion today perhaps soon earth forces but lower the town to hell and use string theory karma tools karma america how i ponder mexico )....

[Yeshai]

can you talk to us about your direct experience with the horizon being a pilot, any personal sort of experiences that may lead you to believe one way or the other? I am trusting science on this one in my day to day but I never fully commit to any theory without proving it to myself, I'd rather hear about people's real experiences with these phenomena, such as those that deal with the problem of the horizon on a day to day. Thanks for the interesting topic and input

Thanks for the reply. In my experience, whether I'm flying a plane or climbing the highest mountain in New England, the horizon stays flat, regardless of my altitude. It's no difference from thousands of feet in the air, than it is at sea level.

If you stand at the shore and look out at the ocean, you will notice a perfectly flat horizon as well. If you take a picture, using a level to be certain of the pictures "levelness", you can open that photo on your computer, and draw a straight and level line from one end to the other, not deviating in any way from the horizon. Such a view of the ocean would guarantee miles and miles of visibility, in which circumstances the earth's curvature should be obvious.

[Urscumug]

And what is the flat earth explanation on Circumnavigation ?

[equalavor]

@OP Are you also one of those people that believes America is in the center of the map?

[Yeshai]

And what is the flat earth explanation on Circumnavigation ?

This is a very popular argument among critics of the flat earth theory, and in my opinion screams very loudly "I know nothing about the flat earth theory".

Circumnavigation is explained equally as easily on a flat earth as it is on a spherical earth. Have a look at this picture:
Circumnavigating the earth would follow a path similar to the sun and moon's orbits.

[Yeshai]

@OP Are you also one of those people that believes America is in the center of the map?

Nope. The north pole is the center, which points to the north star Polaris. North is the center. Even the throne of God is located on the "sides of the north"

[equalavor]

I think you're, foremost, reading too literally into religious scripture. And *only Christian scripture at that.

Sure, the Earth is flat, in the sense that it's just one plane of existence, with an infinite number of layers plastered atop and below it. Otherwise, you're truly reaching into the depths for this argument. You said you weren't a beliver of the hypothesis yourself, but you prove otherwise.


The only way I coulld see this theory even remotely being feasible is if you completely remove the physical aspect of the enitre thing, and refer to all of your arguments as though they applied to the mental plane.

I recommend you take a look at some of the "real" literature shared by the members around here before you start coming to conclusions about anything in your life or others'.


By the by, No full photos of Earth? Uh, clouds? the fact that sattelites probably don't have that wide of a capture area? The fact that the earth is round? I can pull a ton of reasons right out of my butt as to why most of these arugments don't add up. I recommend you start reading and arguing with the books you read.

[Urscumug]

This is a very popular argument among critics of the flat earth theory, and in my opinion screams very loudly "I know nothing about the flat earth theory".

For sure, it's the first time I hear of such a funny theory but I'm not going to spend any more time on this as I don't see its usefulness other than a kind of mind play.

[Nahemah]

This is a very popular argument among critics of the flat earth theory, and in my opinion screams very loudly "I know nothing about the flat earth theory".

Ah, the ignorance, lol.

That may be because flat earth is a hypothesis and not a theory, perhaps?

The terms are not interchangeable.

[Yeshai]

This is a very popular argument among critics of the flat earth theory, and in my opinion screams very loudly "I know nothing about the flat earth theory".

Ah, the ignorance, lol.

That may be because flat earth is a hypothesis and not a theory, perhaps?

The terms are not interchangeable.

It is a theory, just like the theory of the spherical earth, and the theory of gravity.

The world is swallowing theories as if gospel fact. The theory of evolution is not provable, and has no observable evidence to support it. Yet it is accepted as fact throughout the public school system. The same is true with the spherical earth. The fact remains we have not one picture of the spherical earth.
For the "blue marble" picture, a satellite was used to gather imagery "strips" and then stitch them together in the shape of a globe. The strips of imagery had gaps between their mid-sections, where the globe is larger in circumference, and had to be coloured in by the designer. Even the glare on the photo from the sun was added electronically. These things are admitted openly by the designer, It's not "taboo".
Yet this photograph was released to the masses, and without question accepted as 100% truth.

[Nahemah]

It is a theory, just like the theory of the spherical earth, and the theory of gravity.

Nope. That is where you are very wrong.

A hypothesis is an idea or concept that has not yet been thoroughly tested and evidenced. A hypothesis can be any speculation, no matter how incredible or credible, or how well or inanely constructed it may be.

A theory, in Scientific parlance, however, is an idea or concept that has been shown to have more than enough positive evidence accrued to accept it's validity.

American Association for the Advancement of Sciences:

“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.

The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.”

[I've chosen US sources, guessing the public school system comment means you are US based]

A scientific theory summarises a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing..."The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

The process of becoming a scientific theory

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon...

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html

You really do need to do some basic reading on this. Also as recommended before, some understanding of logical fallacies may help you construct sounder arguments.

The world is swallowing theories as if gospel fact. The theory of evolution is not provable, and has no observable evidence to support it. Yet it is accepted as fact throughout the public school system.

Ahaha...gospel fact, that's pretty funny.

Sorry, back to serious, The theory of evolution is observable and has been proven many times over. It's how we do medical science these days and it works, the ultimate proof, actually as most people would accept it to be, given it's a reasonable and reasoned and observed proof and only one of many, being proven over and over again in hospitals up and down your land, or mine and all around the world all day, everyday.
Theory and hypothesis are not interchangeable terms. Weasel wording and attempts to conflate terminologies may confuse some people, but this should not, however, be used to prop up a weak argument

So, for theory reread definition above, Flat Earth, however, remains a fringe hypothesis as it is so easily discountable and there are no significant or repeatable experiments that have found positive evidence for it, while, on the other hand, there are many positive proofs of the oblate spheroidal Earth.

[Urscumug]

Frustrated dad throws things into fire because his son's GF thought the earth is flat