Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Why People Think the World is Flat" video.
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ROBERTPUNU - You said "that website is wrong. there are over 200 bible verses that support the flat earth model."
No my friend, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit !
Secondly, Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE. None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Why? Because you can find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary.
In other words, for most of its history the ONLY thing Christian churches had in common with flat Earth 'theory' was the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
Those who tell you the Bible says the Earth is flat are attempting to corrupt your faith, where apparently they are succeeding :-|
3
-
@ROBERTPUNU - For example, you highlighted Isaiah 40:22.
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't mean flat.
Here is Isaiah 40:22 from various Bibles that is being referred to here;
King James Bible (1611); "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims Bible (1582); "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible; "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (1st or 2nd Century AD); "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
New American Bible; "The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth..."
Catholic Public Domain Version; "He is the One who sits upon the globe of the earth..."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English; "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
Matthew's Bible (1537); "That he sitteth upon the circle of the world..."
That's because the Hebrew word 'chug' being translated by those bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
Again, no Christian church in history has ever said the earth is flat, only a globe.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "real science is about what can be measured"
Great, so lets do some real science with a large pool of water, say an Olympic swimming pool.
An Olympic swimming pool is 50 meters long, so to calculate the effect of curvature we need to work out the drop for 25 meters (the middle of the pool to the edge).
Whether you use the equation for the curvature of the Earth or the limited approximation stated by flat Earth believers of 8 inches per mile squared we arrive at the same result;
Using 8 inches per mile squared to make it easier, where 25 meters is 0.0155343 miles, then we get a drop of;
0.00193051581 inches, which is about 0.05 millimeters.
That's the width of a human hair.
Think about that. Over the length of 50 meters, or 164 FEET, the rise in the water due to the curvature of the Earth would only be the width of a human hair.
And so to our eyes and even to the measuring capabilities of most people, the surface water of those Olympic swimming pools will appear perfectly flat, even thought it's not.
Therefore your assertion of perfectly flat water is false :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Antarctica is twice the size of Australia, therefore if someone goes exploring on their own without informing others and is then declared missing days/weeks later, who is suppose to spend the money and the resources and risk lives searching for that irresponsible person lost in Antarctica?
Antarctica is the last unspoiled continent on Earth and it is RICH with untapped resources (oil, coal, gold, diamonds, rare Earth minerals, etc), hence the treaty protects Antarctica from any nation claiming it as their own. The treaty protects Antarctica from nations fighting over its resources (i.e. wars) and prevents private companies from exploiting it for oil and gems and minerals and other natural resources, ruining the environment in the process. The treaty protects Antarctica from being used for military purposes.
The treaty doesn't stop anyone from visiting or exploring Antarctica responsibly.
Regardless, all of us can book onto trips to Antarctica and even book onto trips to the South Pole (the place flat Earth theorists claim doesn't exist) any time we want... assuming we can afford it that is :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aquavideoman - And now, my proof, including what you need to do to debunk it;
The map of the Earth in the form of a globe is accurate, where we can easily work out the scale of the globe by dividing 24,900 (miles) by the measured length of the equator.
For example, on a 12 inch globe it works out to be 26 miles per millimeter.
You can now use the globe to accurately measure the distance between ANY two locations on Earth and it will be accurate. So on that 12 inch globe for example, a measurement of 23 millimeters will be 600 miles, and therefore for every two locations on Earth that are proven to be 600 miles apart, they will be 23 millimeters (2.3 centimeters) apart on that globe.
That would be impossible if the shape of the Earth was wrong.
We can do the same for maps of our cities because they are small enough to be relatively flat, and therefore we can all find maps of our cities with bar scales that indicates distances on that map.
There are no flat maps of a flat Earth for which we can do the same, because ALL flat maps of the Earth are distorted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nezkeys79 - So I'll end by quoting from 'Encyclopædia Britannica'
"Nicolaus Copernicus (born February 19, 1473, Toruń, Royal Prussia, Poland—died May 24, 1543, Frauenburg, East Prussia [now Frombork, Poland]) Polish astronomer who proposed that the planets have the Sun as the fixed point to which their motions are to be referred; that Earth is a planet which, besides orbiting the Sun annually, also turns once daily on its own axis; and that very slow long-term changes in the direction of this axis account for the precession of the equinoxes.
This representation of the heavens is usually called the heliocentric, or “Sun-centred,” system—derived from the Greek helios, meaning “Sun.” Copernicus’s theory had important consequences for later thinkers of the Scientific Revolution, including such major figures as Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, and Newton.
Copernicus probably hit upon his main idea sometime between 1508 and 1514, and during those years he wrote a manuscript usually called the Commentariolus (“Little Commentary”).
However, the book that contains the final version of his theory, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri vi (“Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs”), did not appear in print until 1543, the year of his death."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Flat Earth became popular because of Eric Dubay with his eBook and channel in 2015 and it really took off the year after. So where's your evidence of any connection between Eric Dubay and NASA please?
Flat Earth grew because it went unchecked and unchallenged by social media sites, which allowed anyone to claim anything they wanted without pushback.
But 5-6 years ago there was a clamp down here, and that's when the main changes were made (some for the better, some definitely for the worse), so I don't know were you got the idea that it was the early 2000s, much less to the extent you claim, since no videos have been removed or doctored here, instead YT simply made certain videos more difficult to find.
The fact that you try to link Eric Dubay's success with Flat Earth to NASA, which spread thanks to social media not NASA, and linked it to the moon landings highlights exactly why conspiracy believers are willing to believe practically anything that fits their narrative, without the need for any evidence :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terrence, a total eclipse of the sun occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun.
This has always been agreed, even among flat Earth theorists, hence to quote from the famous 1865 flat Earth book "Zetetic Astronomy" 2nd edition;
"An Eclipse of the Sun is caused simply by the Moon passing before it, or between it and the observer on the Earth. Of this no question has been raised."
Then we had the total eclipse of the sun across the USA in 2017, where out of nowhere (probably because of the 70 mile width of the shadow) certain flat Earth theorists started to claim that it's not the moon but some other object passing in front of the sun, with many claiming it's Rahu from Hindu mythology :-|
The problem is, a total eclipse of the sun only ever occurs at exactly the same time as a New Moon, the time when the sun and moon are aligned at the same location in our sky.
So ask yourself the following; When a total eclipse of the sun only ever happens at exactly the same time as the New Moon, going back to the oldest reports of eclipses from ancient people, and we see the sun being covered by an object exactly the same size and shape as the moon, then isn't it more likely that the object is.... the moon, rather than some mysterious object that no-one has ever seen? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christianpulido8360 - So again, to prove me wrong then ALL you have to do is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is different to the distance measured in the real world.
You cannot find a single example, proving the globe is accurate and undistorted.
In contrast, here's some of the distances in miles measured directly from the Gleason map;
Sydney to Santiago = 15,950
Sydney to Johannesburg = 14,600
Sydney to Perth = 5,100
Auckland to Buenos Aires = 15,700
Cape Town to Durban = 1,800
Dakar to Mogadishu = 5850
Here's the actual distances in miles in the real world (as confirmed on any globe);
Sydney to Santiago = 7,046
Sydney to Johannesburg = 6,856
Sydney to Perth = 2,044
Auckland to Buenos Aires = 6,430
Cape Town to Durban = 790
Dakar to Mogadishu = 4,359
Explain the huge discrepancy with the distances measured on the Gleason map please :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phildavenport4150 - And that's what saddens me about conspiracy believers in general, where they are ALWAYS whinging and whining about being victims, hence complain that "They" are doing this to "us" and "They" are doing that to "us" and hence the world is so unfair and evil.
Until a few years ago, if I searched YouTube for "Apollo Moon Landings" for example, the search results were always dominated by hoax videos, and so I had to wade through those hoax videos to find the information I wanted. Unacceptable, but I had no choice and so I worked around it.
Finally however, Google/YouTube changed their search algorithm to redress the imbalance, flagging conspiracy videos and giving them less priority, so now such a search produces the results I wanted.
But immediately following that change, conspiracy believers accused YouTube of deleting all the conspiracy videos, that it's censorship, that the evil authorities strikes again, despite the fact that they can still find those videos in their playlists and through searches!
So now they have to work smarter to find the conspiracy videos they're looking for, but I guess it's easier to just pretend that it's another conspiracy 🙄
:-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MGTOWwithGOD - Quotes from Chapter 11 from Ron Wyatt's book "Discovered: Noah's Ark"
"...approached by an intense heat source covering one side of the planet. It is then set in motion and begins to rotate against this heat source not unlike a beef on a barbeque spit. This records the initiation of the "earth day"-- one rotation equals one day."
"The creation week was just approximately six thousand years ago... The mass of the sun was there, prior to the creation week, but as yet unlighted. When it was lighted, as recorded in Genesis 1:14-19, its light reflected off the planets and their moons, thus our sun, moon and stars became visible for the first time on the fourth day of creation week."
"Vegitation is noted on the third day, fishes and fowls on the fifth and the introduction of animals and human life on the sixth. God rests during the seventh rotation of the planet, having ended the thawing out, beautification and introduction of various life forms upon planet earth."
"This produced a planet whose vapor screen was held aloft by the combined buoyancy produced by a carefully calculated rotational velocity and the warm air lift produced by the sun's heat."
"This produced the second, and last, ice-age, the first being the period between the creation of the solar system and the creation week described in Genesis- an undisclosed period of time."
Throughout the entire book Ron refers to the Earth as a planet, where as you can read above that the Earth is rotating, and he even mentions the solar system with the sun the other "planets and their moons" :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toniywaya7696 - The "telephone" change was funny, but that aside, you are 100% CORRECT.
Flat Earth believers go on and on and on about what they claim is wrong with the globe Earth, such as claims we shouldn't see location X from location Y, but they NEVER say what we SHOULD be able to see at a distance on their claimed flat Earth!
No equations for how far we can see for any given altitude, no rules of thumb estimates equivalent to "8 inches per mile squared", just nothing at all.
Some FE believers use the excuse that there's a limit to how far we can see, but even if we took that into account, those same FE believers claim the sun and moon circle the Earth 3000 miles up, which means we can see objects at least 3000 miles away.
So the question is, where are their photographs/videos taken from one location on Earth that shows landmark features that are 3000 miles away? Much less 2000 miles away or even 1000 miles away? :-)
All of that should be possible on a flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JEvrist - You said "because I’m also a sociologist and religion is manmade dogma."
Then don't presume to have all the answers by referring to manmade religious books born out of the very same dogma you refer to, eg. the Bible, the Quran etc.
I never said you were Roman Catholic, and yet you focused on that. Instead there are many denominations of Christianity, hence read about them here please;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination
In reality you are a contrarian Jessica, preferring to pick and choose whatever fits in with your world view at any given time, including your interpretation of the Bible.
You said and I quote "Genesis 1 says earth is dirt and it has no shape".
The Bible NEVER says the Earth is flat or a ball. The Hebrew word for "flat" is used in the Bible but NEVER to describe the shape of the Earth. Likewise the Hebrew word for "ball" is used in the Bible but NEVER to describe the shape of the Earth.
As a result, Christian denominations for nearly 2000 years believed the Earth to be a stationary GLOBE.
Even Creationists, well known for taking the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE, where some Creationists even claim that flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to make Christians appear out of touch with reality (i.e. stupid).
So if you want to claim that the Earth is stationary based upon the Bible, then yes you will find that stated explicitly in the Bible. But if you want to claim the Earth is flat based upon the Bible, then you will NOT find that stated explicitly in the Bible, and therefore you cannot use the Bible as evidence to support that claim. Just as someone else can't use the Bible as evidence to support a globe Earth.
As for me. I don't believe in God, I believe in people, hence I believe in doing all I can to help those around me and being as good a person as I can to everyone (we ALL know what is good and bad, mental issues aside).
However, I NEVER attack others for believing in God or for following their religions, because that's their choice and their right, and so I respect their rights. However, if they use their religious beliefs to attack science, then I see nothing wrong in challenging such claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JEvrist - Thank you for proving my points so perfectly :-)
You have rambled on and on, but in all that text you have YET to present what I asked you for, where I said and I quote:
"There are verses in the Bible that explicitly states the Earth is stationary. So give me the equivalent that explicitly states the Earth is flat."
I'm still waiting. Why is that?
The answer is, as I stated, there are no such versus in the Bible. No where in the Bible does it explicitly say the Earth is flat. Fact.
So if you want to use the Bible to claim the Earth is stationary, then fine that's your right because it IS stated in the Bible (but then again, so is a talking Donkey and a talking Serpent and a fish that a man can survive inside for days), but the Bible does NOT explicitly say the Earth is flat, and therefore you can't make that claim based upon the Bible.
Therefore if you choose to believe the Earth is flat, then go ahead it's your right, but it does NOT come from the Bible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tiloraber627 - You said "First.The bible is not written by "Jesus"."
Nobody said it was, so stick to the actual points made please.
You said "Its gods/satans word and its written by his followers..."
Irrelevant. The Bible doesn't state the shape of the Earth, that's a fact, therefore don't hide behind the Bible to claim the Earth is flat, since that effectively makes you a traitor of your own faith imo (sorry but that's the way I see it).
You said "But I had a problem with Genesis 1: 6-10. The water above
the fortress called the sky. The space full of water?"
So you choose to take the Bible literally when it suits you? Well isn't that what Creationists do? Hence they claim the Earth is around 6000 years old based upon the Bible, and that Adam and Eve and Noah's Arc and other stories in the Bible are historical facts, do they not?
And yet even Creationists, yes those who take the Bible literally, say the Earth is a GLOBE!
Go to a Creationist website and search for 'Flat Earth' for example, and read what they say (but you may not like what you find there).
In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming that flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity. Oh but of course, you have a problem with such terms, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tiloraber627 - Putting aside your attempts at distraction :-) it's very telling that you haven't presented a verse from the Bible that explicitly states the shape of the Earth, much less one that explicitly states the Earth is flat.
Had you known of just ONE such verse from the Bible, you would have stated it already. Therefore you effectively proved my point.
You said " And here lies your mistake you are only looking at the two-dimensional"
Poor logic on your part, where I explained why the horizon is exactly as we would expect on a globe Earth and you simply cannot grasp it.
You said "Because a sphere is round on every circumference. If the earth were a ball everyone would see the curvature!"
Hence proving my previous point, since you are incorrectly claiming that horizontal curvature should be easily seen with our eyes no matter how large the Earth is, which is like claiming that a thin 10 foot line with a curvature offset of just 1 millimetre should be easily seen to curve, when the reality is such a line would look perfectly straight line to our eyes.
Our ability to see horizontal curvature improves with altitude, where as the horizon drops with increased altitude the circle of the horizon is lower and further away, making the curvature along the horizon increasingly easier to see with our eyes.
You said "Why should anything change in the result if I make a third hole?"
Clearly mathematics is not your strong point :-) With two wells the shadow angles will point towards the sun if plotted on a diagram of a flat Earth or a globe Earth.
But add a third well and the angles measured will not all line up on a diagram of a flat Earth, but they would on a diagram of a globe Earth.
You said "You can leave one there. No i am not interested"
Well of course you wouldn't be interested, no flat Earth believer wants to risk his/her beliefs being challenged, much less debunked :-)
1
-
@tiloraber627 - [Sorry, didn't get a notification]
Regarding the shadow angles for 3 wells, you said "Please show me, a video if you want."
Simple mathematics is all you need, but I acknowledge that mathematics is not for everyone, hence I'll try to keep it simple.
A perfect time to carry out a test is during the equinox, when the sun is directly over the equator.
On those two days of the year, for people in the north the angle of the sun at it's highest point in degrees (around noon) will be 90 minus their latitude on a GLOBE Earth (because latitude is measured from the equator), and for people in the south it will be 90 plus their latitude, hence it aligned with the latitude of everyone on a GLOBE Earth.
In other words it lines up perfectly on a GLOBE Earth.
So look up the co-ordinates of your location (latitude and longitude), where in March (about March 21) and in September (about September 23) the highest angle of the sun in the sky will be 90 plus or minus the latitude of your location, depending on whether you live north or south of the equator.
Draw those angles on a circle representing the Earth and they all point in parallel towards a distance sun. Draw those angles on a flat line to represent a flat Earth and they point to different distances for the sun.
The following video covers that point well;
youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg
1
-
@tiloraber627 - You said "There is no verse from the Bible known to me that describes a unique shape of the earth. And yes, if there was one I could bring it. Would you acknowledge this?"
Yes of course, I would acknowledge it, but I know for a fact that there are no verses in the Bible that explicitly state the shape of the Earth, where any claims about the shape of the Earth from the Bible are implied.
What I can also acknowledge is that there are verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary, hence for many centuries after the first Christian churches appeared they all believed in a stationary globe Earth, none of those churches throughout history have ever preached a flat Earth, not even implied.
You said "Could you acknowledge that it is entirely possible that there is knowledge that is withheld from you?"
Of course, and the same applies to yourself, but the shape of the Earth is easy to prove with evidence that you, myself and everyone here can directly check ourselves, therefore the Earth being a globe is not a belief, it's a fact.
1
-
1
-
@tiloraber627 - And consider the following please;
It doesn't matter whether you think the Earth is hollow, flat or a globe, our towns and cities are so much smaller than the Earth that the shape of the Earth would have negligible effect upon the accuracy of flat maps of our towns and cities.
As a result, every one of us can find an accurate flat map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the bar scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our flat map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the flat map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the map alone!
Do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tygajones4509 - In contrast...
The MAP of the Earth around a globe is just ONE piece of evidence that proves the Earth is a globe.
Take a physical globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the length between those locations and work out the distance in miles (based upon the size/scale of the globe) and it will match the distance measured for real for that same journey on Earth, either by land or sea or air.
That works for ABSOLUTELY ANY TWO LOCATIONS on Earth . No errors, no discrepancies, just accurate distances no matter which two locations you choose to measure on your globe.
NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map hijacked by flat Earth theorists.
So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen .
Likewise, to prove the Earth is not a globe, all you need to do is find two locations where the measurement of the distance between them on the physical globe is DIFFERENT to the distance measured in the real world.
Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged around a globe is accurate, it works, it has worked for centuries, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth. :-)
1
-
@tygajones4509 - Come on, really? If the dome is suppose to be solid and a rocket is travelling at GREAT speed, then how can a rocket hit the solid dome without damage, much less without exploding?
Hence your video is a classic example of how charlatans take information and TWIST it because they know it will fool some people.
Here's what typically happens;
1) We see an amateur rocket with an on board camera launch.
2) The rocket begins to spin faster and faster.
3) We hear a sound and the rocket suddenly stops spinning.
4) The rocket stage separates.
5) Flat Earth believers cry out "It hit the dome, it hit the dome!!!".
But now here are the REAL FACTS behind such footage;
a) Those rockets are designed with tail fins to make them spin through the air to give them stability (like when a dart or arrow or bullet spins through the air).
b) The rocket cannot deploy the payload safely while it's spinning, so a method is used to stop the rotation called yoyo despin
c) At the desired altitude, yoyo despin is deployed, which consists of weights at the end of cables which fly outwards (look up how and why it works).
d) In the footage we can see and/or hear the yoyo despin being deployed and so the rocket stops spinning.
e) The payload is then deployed and that rocket stage falls back to earth.
We don't see the yoyo despin device in some videos because the camera was mounted BELOW the device, and hence it's behind the camera.
For a clear example of yoyo despin where the camera is mounted ABOVE the device so that we can see and hear it, watch the following YouTube video please (I've set it to the right timestamp);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7S8yyYrAw&t=92
At 1:35 in that video, we can actually see the cables of the yoyo despin device being deployed and then the rocket stage separates moments afterwards. Notice the rocket stops spinning in the SAME way and we hear the SAME sound that was claimed to be the rocket hitting the dome in your video!
Again, in some other videos (like yours) the camera is placed BELOW the yoyo despin device and so we don't see it, we can only hear it.
So when you look again at flat Earth videos claiming rockets are hitting the dome you should have a greater understanding of what is really happening, and therefore you will know those videos are lying to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tygajones4509 - You said "The dome is curved so naturally the distance to reach it would be much shorter at various points on the map"
Shorter at the SIDES of the claimed dome above the claimed wall of ice that it's supposed to be up against! It cannot be below 3000 miles at the locations the rockets were launched from, and those rockets certainly didn't cover a distance of 3000 miles from launch to when the yoyo despin was deployed.
The fact is, the model of a flat Earth with a firmament dome makes it IMPOSSIBLE for any rocket to reach the dome from the locations they were launch from in less than 3000 miles.
Rockets did not scrape or bounce off the dome, that's simply you and the video maker not understanding what you're seeing and so you make something up to fit in with your beliefs.
So the only person who is ignorant here is yourself, where you don't even know the flat Earth that you say you believe.
Here's another simple fact. If there is footage of rockets hitting or bouncing off a dome, then that means you can WORK OUT the height of the dome from that footage. And yet to this day, no flat Earth theorist/believer knows the height of the claimed firmament dome, they ALL say they don't know!
If you can see it, if you can touch it, then you can measure it. And yet no-one has, therefore your claim is false.
And claiming people who disagree with you are only doing so because they are probably being paid by governments or agencies is a rather spineless accusation my friend (sorry but it's true :-)), one that is used by believers of almost every conspiracy theory out there!
Such an accusation is more about you imagining yourself to be a hero fighting against evil government agents, instead of just accept you're having a debate with an ordinary guy who knows you're wrong.
But hey, NASA only hire the BEST in any given field, so I'll take that as a backhanded compliment ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CarsSlavik-mt2rt - The two experiments in my last reply demonstrates gravity :-)
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JEvrist - If you really do have a BA in Studio Art then you should be ashamed at making such a schoolgirl error, because photos in books, magazines, documentaries, websites etc, are often EDITED to make them look better, including those on SCIENCE websites.
So go ahead and present a link to the photo you took from NASA's website, and then find the same photo in this archive of high resolution scans of the original RAW Apollo photographs;
www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
Or from this older archive here (high res version to most but not all the photos);
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/
And THEN point out where you see cut and paste in the ORIGINAL photographs!
The fact is, many of those old Apollo photographs have problems, from radiation damage (fogging that makes blacks appear more bluish or greenish grey) to noise resulting in dots and marks all over the photographs.
So for example, a great photograph of the Earth may be surrounded by dots of various sizes and colors, which are not stars, and therefore someone may edit that photo (such as copying blocks of black around the Earth) to hide all the flaws, leaving just the Earth in the image.
People like you would THEN see the edits in that photo and cry out "FAKE" without EVER bothering to look for the original photos to see if you can find the same alterations!
So again, for someone with your claimed education you should be embarrassed to have made such an uninformed claim about photographs on NASA's website.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1