The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Cinnamon buns on June 04, 2018, 05:23:44 AM
-
How can the globe be a lie if its so accurate at predicting events like solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, etc and why is the curvature of the earth taken to consideration when constructing bridges, or launcing a missile and stuff.
-
Because every expert or professional that works in that field is being paid by the government to hide the global lie.
-
Because every expert or professional that works in that field is being paid by the government to hide the global lie.
Woah. That's expensive. Where does NASA get all the money from.
-
Wait. HOLD THE PHONE. How do you know all of this. DO YOU WORK FOR NASA.
-
SHUT THIS THREAD DOWN RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A CODE SCARLET. REPEAT, WE HAVE A CODE SCARLET RIGHT HERE.
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
-
SHUT THIS THREAD DOWN RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A CODE SCARLET. REPEAT, WE HAVE A CODE SCARLET RIGHT HERE.
NASA EMPLOYEE. OK let's stop with the all caps.
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Oh. OK.
-
Flat-earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Because bridges usually are not long enough to take that into account. The longest bridge is the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge, which is 164km long.
Source: The bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danyang%E2%80%93Kunshan_Grand_Bridge)
But let's take this one, for example, the Manchac Swamp Bridge. I have chosen this one because it is pretty much a straight line.
Also, it is 36.7 km long, which means that you can not see both ends of the bridge at the same time. (There are almost 70 meters hiden)
Source: The curvature calculator (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=36.69&h0=2&unit=metric)
Source: The bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchac_Swamp_Bridge)
-
the earth is not small enough to be able to see the curves, you dunderheads. you can only see it if ur high enough in the atmosphere. when you are on earth, the curves are the reason you cant see farther than you can. if the earth was flat, you would be able to see everything
-
Flat-earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Because bridges usually are not long enough to take that into account. The longest bridge is the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge, which is 164km long.
Source: The bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danyang%E2%80%93Kunshan_Grand_Bridge)
But let's take this one, for example, the Manchac Swamp Bridge. I have chosen this one because it is pretty much a straight line.
Also, it is 36.7 km long, which means that you can not see both ends of the bridge at the same time. (There are almost 70 meters hiden)
Source: The curvature calculator (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=36.69&h0=2&unit=metric)
Source: The bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchac_Swamp_Bridge)
Please feel free to contact the actual organization as has been done multiple times in the past, and it is always found to be a mere myth.
Here's one example of such:
There is the mail address [email protected] on page http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/administration.php (http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/administration.php) and everyone can write and ask about the matter as I did. And the answer was following:
There is no evidence of this, unfortunately, it is merely a theoretical
and, I have been told, rather inprecise calculation.
Yours sincerely
Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster
Humber Bridge Board
Ferriby Road
Hessle
East Yorkshire
HU13 0JG
-
the earth is not small enough to be able to see the curves, you dunderheads. you can only see it if ur high enough in the atmosphere. when you are on earth, the curves are the reason you cant see farther than you can. if the earth was flat, you would be able to see everything
You can not see it, but you can measure it. Besides, even if the earth were flat you would not see everything. There are geographic constraints and the air is not totally transparent. That being said, you would still see things that can not be seen right now. So yeah. Pretty much.
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Not accurately. All they could do is make guesses based on past events recorded in their astronomical tables.
-
You can not see it, but you can measure it. Besides, even if the earth were flat you would not see everything. There are geographic constraints and the air is not totally transparent. That being said, you would still see things that can not be seen right now. So yeah. Pretty much.
I say that all the time. I can see things that can not be seen right now.
-
You can not see it, but you can measure it. Besides, even if the earth were flat you would not see everything. There are geographic constraints and the air is not totally transparent. That being said, you would still see things that can not be seen right now. So yeah. Pretty much.
I say that all the time. I can see things that can not be seen right now.
I can never get whether you are a FE believer or not.
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Not accurately. All they could do is make guesses based on past events recorded in their astronomical tables.
Not only accurately, but remarkably accurately. If you can give any evidence that scientists are somewhere crunching numbers on a three-body problem to predict eclipses, you'll be the first in my time here. We still use Saros cycles.
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Not accurately. All they could do is make guesses based on past events recorded in their astronomical tables.
Not only accurately, but remarkably accurately. If you can give any evidence that scientists are somewhere crunching numbers on a three-body problem to predict eclipses, you'll be the first in my time here. We still use Saros cycles.
Sure we use the Soras cycles to predict approximately when eclipses will occur, but scientists have done the number crunching to predict the exact seconds of eclipses, exact whereabouts of the eclipses, and durations, ect.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SEcatalog.html
Here is the five millennium catalog of solar eclipses, predicting all solar eclipses from 2000 BCE to 3000 CE. They can easily calculate more, but there really is no reason currently to predict that far ahead.
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Not accurately. All they could do is make guesses based on past events recorded in their astronomical tables.
Not only accurately, but remarkably accurately. If you can give any evidence that scientists are somewhere crunching numbers on a three-body problem to predict eclipses, you'll be the first in my time here. We still use Saros cycles.
Actually, these days there's more to eclipse prediction than just Saros and 3 body calculations. If you really want precise calculations, you need to take into account the elevation of the observer and the topographic features of the lunar surface.
"For the Aug. 2017 eclipse, that's going to pass over the Cascades and the Rockies, and lots of observers that are at elevations that are several kilometers," Wright said. "And so the entire umbra, this is the central shadow, will shift to the southeast by several kilometers when you take into account that elevation."
Wright uses elevation data from NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, which measures the elevation at 1,200 points between each line of latitude or longitude. He also takes into account the precise locations of the Earth, moon and sun at each time, and the time the sunlight takes to travel to the moon and then down to Earth. [How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are]
To factor all of that in, eclipse modelers like Wright use the 19th-century coordinate system as a starting point, but then calculate the view for millions of simulated observers by working in the profile of the moon, size and angle of the sun in the sky, as well as elevation at each of the points on the ground. That lets them plot out the swath of land that will see an eclipse, and how long it will last at each point. The number of calculations would seem very strange to early eclipse modelers, but isn't unusual for fields like computer graphics.
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Not accurately. All they could do is make guesses based on past events recorded in their astronomical tables.
Your reply is pure hoakum.
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Not accurately. All they could do is make guesses based on past events recorded in their astronomical tables.
Not only accurately, but remarkably accurately. If you can give any evidence that scientists are somewhere crunching numbers on a three-body problem to predict eclipses, you'll be the first in my time here. We still use Saros cycles.
Actually, these days there's more to eclipse prediction than just Saros and 3 body calculations...
MORE
Partner Series
How Scientists Predict the Path of the 2017 Total Solar Eclipse
During a total solar eclipse, the moon completely obscures the sun for parts of the Earth. Careful calculations help researchers and the public determine where to go to see the total blackout.
Credit: Miloslav Druckmüller, Peter Aniol, Martin Dietzel, Vojtech Rusin
Millions of people intend to watch the 2017 total solar eclipse, which will cross the continental U.S. on Aug. 21. Here's how NASA scientists figure out exactly where the moon's shadow will fall on the surface of the Earth, down to the city block.
Space.com talked with NASA's Ernie Wright, who has been producing NASA's visualizations of the celestial event, to learn how satellites mapping the surface of the moon and advances in computing power have made it possible for scientists to predict precisely where on Earth the eclipse will be visible and for exactly how long — with a precision of about 100 meters (330 feet, or about the length of a city block).
Advertisement
Knowing where to watch the eclipse means the difference between seeing totality — when the sun is fully concealed by the moon — and just a partial eclipse, where the moon covers part of the sun but the sky doesn't fully darken. If you're outside the path of totality, the moon's crossing will be just a glancing blow. [Total Solar Eclipse 2017: When, Where and How to See It (Safely)]
A 19th century technique for predicting the eclipse has scientists using a coordinate system aligned with the shadow of the moon on the Earth, ...
To factor all of that in, eclipse modelers like Wright use the 19th-century coordinate system as a starting point, ...
That's possibly worse... He doesn't calculate the sun and moon's position. He uses a 19th century plot of the Saros cycle to determine their position. Thanks.
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Pythagorean number cult???????
-
You can not see it, but you can measure it. Besides, even if the earth were flat you would not see everything. There are geographic constraints and the air is not totally transparent. That being said, you would still see things that can not be seen right now. So yeah. Pretty much.
I say that all the time. I can see things that can not be seen right now.
I can never get whether you are a FE believer or not.
He's a person, either way. I think that gets forgotten by a lot of new posters that show up just to start attacking. Not referring to you specifically, your post just presented an opportunity to mention the observation.
-
You can not see it, but you can measure it. Besides, even if the earth were flat you would not see everything. There are geographic constraints and the air is not totally transparent. That being said, you would still see things that can not be seen right now. So yeah. Pretty much.
I say that all the time. I can see things that can not be seen right now.
I can never get whether you are a FE believer or not.
He's a person, either way. I think that gets forgotten by a lot of new posters that show up just to start attacking. Not referring to you specifically, your post just presented an opportunity to mention the observation.
Well, that is the internet for ya. People being dicks to each other because they have nothing better to do.
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Pythagorean number cult???????
Globularism arose from the Pythagorean number cult. The Pythagoreans believed the Earth to be round as it was a divine shape.
-
That's possibly worse... He doesn't calculate the sun and moon's position. He uses a 19th century plot of the Saros cycle to determine their position. Thanks.
Did you miss this part of what I quoted?
He also takes into account the precise locations of the Earth, moon and sun at each time, and the time the sunlight takes to travel to the moon and then down to Earth. [How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are]
-
Flat earthers were predicting eclipses for millennia before the existence of the Pythagorean number cult.
Noone constructs bridges with the curvature of the earth in mind. That's a myth.
Pythagorean number cult???????
Globularism arose from the Pythagorean number cult. The Pythagoreans believed the Earth to be round as it was a divine shape.
I think it arose because no other explaination has been put forth that actually matches observations and measurable data.
And people have been to space now and looked back to see a sphere earth. So there's that.
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.
-
How can the globe be a lie if its so accurate at predicting events like solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, etc and why is the curvature of the earth taken to consideration when constructing bridges, or launcing a missile and stuff.
How can the " round earth" be a lie, since all of the measurements of distances, shapes of islands, continents, etc. all match up with reality ?
How can the "flat earth" be taken as the truth , since there is no map or anything to compare for reality ?
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.
But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.
But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...
If I recall correctly it was known to be round in India and China with no connection to western belief on it.
But again, my point, is nothing else has been presented that works.
Edit: Ski, I started a thread in the general section asking about your model. If you are so inclined I would like to see your thoughts on it.
-
Ski. It is interesting that you choose the Humber road bridge as an example. It is a suspension bridge, with a curved deck, so little use for measuring a curve. The span over water is only 1.9km, an online curvature calculator gives me 28cm of curve on the Earth. The towers are 1.4km apart so curvature is only 8cm. Mr Hill's reply is unsurprising.
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
Yes.
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.
But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...
First your query, "Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?"
I don't know about strictly "Pythagorean influence", but no, I do not know of belief in the Globe originating outside Greece.
As far as I am aware belief in the Globe spread to the Greco-Roman region, then the Middle East, Arabia, Persia and India and finally to China in the 17th century AD.
Then you seem to be implying that Pythagoras had an a priori assumption of sphericity.
Though records that far back are sparse, from what I understand, before Pythagoras the general belief among even the Greeks was that the earth was flat. Though because of the tendancy to ascribe these ideas to prominent people, Pythagoras may or may not have originated the conceot.
It is possible that belief in the Globe predates even Aristotle. The geographer Strabosuggested that the spherical shape of the Earth was probably known to seafarers around the Mediterranean Sea since at least the time of Homer, citing a line from the Odyssey as indicating that the poet Homer knew of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC.
Aristotle seems be one of the earliest to give reasons for his belief in a Globe, not all of which are logical.
But, one little surprise is that Archimedes expressed so explicitly that:In proposition 2 of the First Book of his treatise "On floating bodies," Archimedes demonstrates that "The surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose centre is the same as that of the earth."
The whole point is that these people believed the earth a Globe for very logical reasons and not because of any assumptions.
So, are you aware of an instance belief in a sphere arrived because of an a priori assumption of sphericity?
I can't imagine where an a priori assumption of sphericity might have originated, unless from Plato who "thought spheres were ;) cool ;)".
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.
But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...
Actually, no. Everybody thought the earth was flat until Galileo, you really thought the flat earth theory came after the acceptance of the round earth?
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.
But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...
Actually, no. Everybody thought the earth was flat until Galileo, you really thought the flat earth theory came after the acceptance of the round earth?
Wrong. Everyone knows that Columbus proved that the earth was round when he sailed to America.
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.
But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...
Actually, no. Everybody thought the earth was flat until Galileo, you really thought the flat earth theory came after the acceptance of the round earth?
Wrong. Everyone knows that Columbus proved that the earth was round when he sailed to America.
Not exactly. Everyone knew the earth was round long before Columbus.
Columbus just thought the earth was much smaller than it really is and thought he had reached India.
That's why we call those islands "The West Indies" and why we call Native Americans "Indians".
Real Indians live in Calcutta and New Delhi.
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.
But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...
Actually, no. Everybody thought the earth was flat until Galileo, you really thought the flat earth theory came after the acceptance of the round earth?
Wrong. Everyone knows that Columbus proved that the earth was round when he sailed to America.
Uh, no. Columbus was attempting to sail to India, using his PRIOR knowledge on the Earth's roundness.
-
Then you seem to be implying that Pythagoras had an a priori assumption of sphericity.
I am not implying it. I am informing you if you were unaware. Pythagorean thought held the sphere divine. Platonic forms came afterward, but obviously rose from the same school. We have romanticized a number cult and given them some sort of legitimacy and "scientific" mindset that was completely foreign to them.
-
Then you seem to be implying that Pythagoras had an a priori assumption of sphericity.
I am not implying it. I am informing you if you were unaware. Pythagorean thought held the sphere divine. Platonic forms came afterward, but obviously rose from the same school. We have romanticized a number cult and given them some sort of legitimacy and "scientific" mindset that was completely foreign to them.
Again, people adopted these ideas because they work. They explain what we see and can test. Flat earth does not.
-
There's no evidenc that Pythagorean thought gave any consideration to the functionality of spherecity.
-
It’s worth noting that ancient civilizations that thought the earth was flat believed the sun and moon orbited the flat earth so day and night occurred simultaneously everywhere.
When dealing with only their local area, it was a reasonable assumption and they were able to chart the relative positions with some accuracy.
It didn’t cause half the problems as the spotlight sun idea to account for time zones.
-
There's no evidenc that Pythagorean thought gave any consideration to the functionality of spherecity.
Not really sure how that's relevant. People certainly did and do consider the functionality of it. It is accepted not because of some preconceived notions or brainwashing. It is accepted because it works and no one has put forth anything else that does.
-
I am not implying it. I am informing you if you were unaware. Pythagorean thought held the sphere divine. Platonic forms came afterward, but obviously rose from the same school. We have romanticized a number cult and given them some sort of legitimacy and "scientific" mindset that was completely foreign to them.
No, the only one trying to do that is you.
All the science shows Earth to be round.
In science, it doesn't matter where an idea comes from. If the evidence and arguments back it up, it will be accepted.
The fact that you continually appeal to the origin rather than the science shows a complete lack of a scientific mindset.
There's no evidenc that Pythagorean thought gave any consideration to the functionality of spherecity.
Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence that modern science has.
Stop focusing on Pythagorean thought.
One person claiming Earth is round and not caring about the functionality of a round Earth doesn't magically mean Earth isn't round.
The fact that all the evidence points to Earth being round and the round model working so well does mean Earth is almost certainly round. (I would say certainly but some people would complain about technicalities).
-
Are you aware of an instance of independent arise of globularism outside of Pythagorean influence?
My point is it was accepted because it actually works and nothing else has been put forward that does.
But you are unaware of an instance it arrived independent of the a priori assumption of spherecity...
Actually, no. Everybody thought the earth was flat until Galileo, you really thought the flat earth theory came after the acceptance of the round earth?
Wrong. Everyone knows that Columbus proved that the earth was round when he sailed to America.
Not exactly. Everyone knew the earth was round long before Columbus.
Columbus just thought the earth was much smaller than it really is and thought he had reached India.
That's why we call those islands "The West Indies" and why we call Native Americans "Indians".
Real Indians live in Calcutta and New Delhi.
LIES!!! Propaganda!! FAKE NEWS!!!
-
Charles Johnson held that Columbus knew the true form of the earth. His crew near mutinied at the thought of sailing to the antipodal side of the earth and falling off, but Co!umbus set them to rights assuring them biblically that the earth is both flat and safe.
-
Charles Johnson held that Columbus knew the true form of the earth. His crew near mutinied at the thought of sailing to the antipodal side of the earth and falling off, but Co!umbus set them to rights assuring them biblically that the earth is both flat and safe.
I don't know who Charles Johnson is. I've never heard of that historian. But I'm pretty sure most historians agree the question was not the shape of the earth but its size. Can you give me a bit more information on your source? I'm not finding anything.
-
Charles K. Johnson was the President of the Flat Earth Society from 1972 until 2001. His Columbus belief is not shared by many.
-
Charles K. Johnson was the President of the Flat Earth Society from 1972 until 2001. His Columbus belief is not shared by many.
Do you happen to know his source for that? His just claiming it with no evidence doesn't really help your case.
-
I am merely relating an entertaining anecdote. I am not trying to convince anyone of its veracity.
-
I am merely relating an entertaining anecdote. I am not trying to convince anyone of its veracity.
Fair enough. But back to the point. Navigators and educated people knew the world was round. Columbus just thought it was smaller than it is.
-
Charles Johnson held that Columbus knew the true form of the earth. His crew near mutinied at the thought of sailing to the antipodal side of the earth and falling off, but Co!umbus set them to rights assuring them biblically that the earth is both flat and safe.
If he tried that, that would likely increase the chance of mutiny as it would likely indicate to his crew he was severely divorced from reality.
-
There is the mail address [email protected] on page http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/administration.php and everyone can write and ask about the matter as I did. And the answer was following:
There is no evidence of this, unfortunately, it is merely a theoretical
and, I have been told, rather inprecise calculation.
Yours sincerely
Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster
Humber Bridge Board
Ferriby Road
Hessle
East Yorkshire
HU13 0JG
The same guy said Earth has a curvature. His reply is posted on your wiki.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Humber_Bridge (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Humber_Bridge)
Thank you for your recent email.
The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the
centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an
inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of
the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the
apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
Regards
Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster
-
Right then. So they "measured" a trapesium that exists "theoretically" by assuming a priori the earth is in fact aglobe. ie "Our tower is X feet talk and Y feet long; how much difference in length would exist were the earth a globe"
Which is certainly a far cry from "why is the curvature of the earth taken to consideration when constructing bridges".
thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an
inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle.
The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured"
"Measured"
-
I apologize for my English. I'm all looking at all these disputes and it's always two opposite points! Forgive me, but no one thought that there might be a third option - no it's not hollow or what the cellular land is called, this is the variant of the earth that originally describes the Torah, then the book of Enoch, and then the New Testament. And all together they talk about something other than just flat land! Is there anyone who researched this version of the device of our land?
-
I apologize for my English. I'm all looking at all these disputes and it's always two opposite points! Forgive me, but no one thought that there might be a third option - no it's not hollow or what the cellular land is called, this is the variant of the earth that originally describes the Torah, then the book of Enoch, and then the New Testament. And all together they talk about something other than just flat land! Is there anyone who researched this version of the device of our land?
The model presented in the book of Enoch has the sun, etc rising from and setting into portals on the eastern and western horizon respectively. Hence the movement of these celestial bodies looks close to what we see in reality.
But once the region gets so large that time-zones need to be considered it starts to fail and this is why the Globe earth was first suggested.
We know for certain that the times the sun, moon, planets and stars rise and set vary as we move around the earth so some other model must be chosen.
The modern flat-earth tries to get around this problem by having these celestial bodies circling above the earth, so has to come up all sorts of ingenious hypotheses to explain simple sunrise and sunset.
-
You are right that we have time zones * But once the region gets so large that time-zones need to be considered it starts to fail and this is why the Globe earth was first suggested. * but then the question becomes - if the Bible refers to Enoch and even to Enoch's book itself (there are 3 translations of this book in which it is almost the same about celestial mechanics) it is said about the same thing - it turns out that they all deceive us, and in fact there is no God then, and all the religions of the world are a fictional fairy tale ... Or are we in this case not quite understanding what is really going on? For example, no one has ever been able to explain why the stars are visible through the moon and how the phases of the moon change in this case, neither those who believe in the ball nor those who believe in flat land can not do this, this is beyond our understanding. At the same time, everywhere there is a reference to the cornerstone of our planet, I meant this cornerstone, saying that the form can be a little different. For the movement of the sun, moon and stars, I have my own idea, in which many phrases from all Scriptures are taken into account and more or less falls into the system that we see in reality.
-
You are right that we have time zones * But once the region gets so large that time-zones need to be considered it starts to fail and this is why the Globe earth was first suggested. * but then the question becomes - if the Bible refers to Enoch and even to Enoch's book itself (there are 3 translations of this book in which it is almost the same about celestial mechanics) it is said about the same thing - it turns out that they all deceive us, and in fact there is no God then, and all the religions of the world are a fictional fairy tale ... Or are we in this case not quite understanding what is really going on? For example, no one has ever been able to explain why the stars are visible through the moon and how the phases of the moon change in this case, neither those who believe in the ball nor those who believe in flat land can not do this, this is beyond our understanding. At the same time, everywhere there is a reference to the cornerstone of our planet, I meant this cornerstone, saying that the form can be a little different. For the movement of the sun, moon and stars, I have my own idea, in which many phrases from all Scriptures are taken into account and more or less falls into the system that we see in reality.
I disagree with your premise that just because something in bible, written by men thousands of years ago isn't scientifically accurate then everything is a lie.
And to your other points, you can't see stars through the moon and we know exactly how the phases work.
-
You are right that we have time zones * But once the region gets so large that time-zones need to be considered it starts to fail and this is why the Globe earth was first suggested. * but then the question becomes - if the Bible refers to Enoch and even to Enoch's book itself (there are 3 translations of this book in which it is almost the same about celestial mechanics) it is said about the same thing - it turns out that they all deceive us, and in fact there is no God then, and all the religions of the world are a fictional fairy tale ... Or are we in this case not quite understanding what is really going on? For example, no one has ever been able to explain why the stars are visible through the moon and how the phases of the moon change in this case, neither those who believe in the ball nor those who believe in flat land can not do this, this is beyond our understanding. At the same time, everywhere there is a reference to the cornerstone of our planet, I meant this cornerstone, saying that the form can be a little different. For the movement of the sun, moon and stars, I have my own idea, in which many phrases from all Scriptures are taken into account and more or less falls into the system that we see in reality.
What scriptures? Are you a literalist? What's your opinions on Enoch not being included in the Canon? So many questions
-
but then the question becomes - if [snip] it turns out that they all deceive us, and in fact there is no God then, and all the religions of the world are a fictional fairy tale
That is a massive jump (although understandable).
The most important is that one book being wrong doesn't mean all religions are wrong or that there is no god.
All it means is that that book is wrong.
That could be because it was written by man instead of god, or god was deceiving people.
It could even just mean that that particular book out of the bible is wrong while the other books could still be correct.
But regardless, it does destroy the authority of anything that book is in.
But yes, all the religions of the world being a fairy tale is one possibility. (and all bar 1 must be wrong as they are mutually exclusive).
You shouldn't be using the books of a religion to try to evaluate reality. If anything, you should be using reality to evaluate the religion.
For example, no one has ever been able to explain why the stars are visible through the moon
No one has been able to show that stars are visible through the moon.
Instead we have videos or pictures with dead pixels or markers placed over the top.
Then there are some satellites in orbit around Earth.
how the phases of the moon change in this case
Except for a RE, the phases of the moon is quite simple.
The sun lights up roughly half.
Whichever half phases the sun is bright, and as the moon orbits around us different sections face the sun.
This was used for one of the earlier measurements of the distance to the sun, using the angle between the sun and the half moon and the distance to the moon.
-
The basic fact is that calculations involving a Round Earth are relatively simple and straightforward, while calculations postulating a flat planet (I mean calculations for astronomical events, mapping very substantial areas, figuring the view from various heights, etc.) seem to require convoluted 'adjustments' that seem to have no particular explanations (other than conversion from Round Earth calculations). One of the most basic facts is that the higher we go, the farther we see to the horizon; from the top of the Empire State Building we can see approx 250 miles away, from the roof of three story building more like 20 miles away, from standing at the seashore a mere 3 miles -- yet it would seem that, on a flat planet, the distances should all the be same, and there should not be a reason why we couldn't see all the way to London. These differences are consistent with a round planet, and there is a simple formula that consistently works (on planet Earth). It simply cannot be denied.
-
Hmm ... it's interesting to listen to the opinion of those who realize that the earth is flat. I affirm that all the books of Enoch and the Bible speak of the same structure of celestial mechanics. This is an English-language site, but do not regret the work of reading Enoch - option 2, in the original language, you will understand much. My understanding of how everything is arranged - the sun, the moon and the stars go through the sky through a system of portals (this is what the writings say) and it all synchronizes with the vibrations of the earth, as our world consists of physical matter maintained in integrity by a harmonic wave.
The moon and changes its phases by mini-jumps when it passes through this system of portals, it is seen by some animals for which it works as an electronic clock. Sorry, no one has yet proved the relationship of the phase change of the moon from the sun - enough to deceive who claims such a connection.
And those who claim that one can not refer to photographic materials about a star, then let him read about it in old paper magazines, as electronic copies of these articles may be missing, as well as that article with the results of evidence that moonlight cools objects. It is in paper form, but it was "forgotten" to be made in electronic form.
sorry for my English
-
Sorry, no one has yet proved the relationship of the phase change of the moon from the sun
Plenty of people have for a RE.
You can easily determine the apparent angle to the sun, even when it is not visible (especially if you track it).
Likewise you can determine the position of the moon and see that the illuminated section is facing the sun. You can even check with a small ball and a torch, by holding the ball out towards the moon, and then having someone hold a torch in the direction of the sun from the ball. (the difference in apparent position of the sun from the moon to Earth is quite small due to the very large distance to the sun, so doing it relative to the sun allows you to not have to make a scale model.)
This all works fine for a RE.
It even works fine for the ancient FE models where the sun would go under Earth, if you allow the sun to be much further away.
It just doesn't work for the popular FE model of today, where the sun and moon both stay above Earth.
And those who claim that one can not refer to photographic materials about a star, then let him read about it in old paper magazines
You are ignoring the issue.
All verifiable observations show that stars do not show up through the moon, that the dark side is not transparent.
Instead you get stars disappearing behind the moon.
This is especially obvious during a solar eclipse when the sun is blocked by the moon.
The issue isn't it being electronic or photographic.
The issue is that basically all the evidence indicates this is not the case.