"Equator" problem

OK, you are entitled to think so, but do you have any proof for that besides mere words? Has any experiment been done to confirm that the ocean surface is curved? For instance, a relatively easy experiment could be extending a straight metal rod across a bay. I have never heard of anything like that. All the evidence that it is curved is mathematical and observational (mainly astronomical). How about measuring the Earth itself?

Yep.  The so-called "disappearing ship" illusion.  It proves unequivocally that the surface of the ocean is curved.

You also say yourself that all the evidence that it's curved is "mathematical and observational".  Or are you claiming that observation is insufficient evidence?  Please clarify.

It's called Geodetics and using many techniques they are constantly measuring and remeasing the dimensions of the Earth.

FYI a measurement is an observation.

If, for example, the world be the globe of popular belief, it is impossible that there ever could have been a universal flood. For such a thing to have happened, it would be required to blot out the whole universe, to stop the revolution of the globe and to bring confusion and ruin to the whole of the "solar system."

"And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered" (Gen. 7:17-20).

From these verses many say the Flood was worldwide, and that the tops of the highest mountains (about 29,000 feet) were covered with 15 cubits (about 22 feet) of water. This means the water level would have been five miles above the present sea level.

The water pressure would have been about 800 tons per square inch.


The Duration of the Flood

A second evidence of the global extent of the Flood is its duration. A careful study of the biblical data reveals the fact that the Flood lasted for 371 days. That the Flood continued for more than a year is entirely in keeping with its universality but cannot properly be reconciled with the local-flood theory.

Our imagination indeed staggers at the thought of a flood so gigantic as to overwhelm the highest mountains of the earth within a period of six weeks and then to continue prevailing over those mountains for an additional sixteen weeks, during which time the sole survivors of the human race drifted upon the face of a shoreless ocean! But if the biblical concept of a deluge covering the tops of mountains for sixteen consecutive weeks is hard to reconcile with the local-flood theory, what are we to say of the fact that Scripture records that an additional thirty-one weeks were required for the waters to subside sufficiently for Noah to disembark safely, somewhere in the mountains of Ararat?

Furthermore, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that it was not merely the top of the high mountain on which the Ark rested that was seen on the first day of the tenth month. The Scriptures inform us that on that day “were the tops of the mountains seen.” In other words, the flood waters must have subsided hundreds of feet in order for various mountain peaks of different altitudes to be seen by then (for the mountains were being pushed up from below).

The duration of the Flood in its assuaging, as well as in its prevailing, compels us to think of it as a global, not merely local catastrophe.

The Need for the Ark

Another indication that the Flood was universal is the necessity of the Ark. God told Noah to build the Ark “to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:3). The whole procedure of constructing this enormous Ark involving, no doubt, many years of planning and toil, simply to escape a local flood, can hardly be described as anything but utterly foolish and unnecessary. God could have told Noah to go on a vacation to Europe or Africa. And rather than sending the animals to the Ark, God could have sent the animals and birds out of the flood zone before the waters reached their highest point. The area could then have been repopulated by creatures spared outside the flood zone. But in a global Flood there would be no survivors among land animals and birds. The Ark was essential.

The Use of Universal Terms

Consider also the repetitive use of universal terms. Sixty times we find in the Flood account the use of such universal terms as “all,” “every,” “in whose nostrils is the breath of life,” and “everywhere under the heaven” (see for example, Genesis 7:19, (22)). While some of these terms are periodically used in the Old Testament in a limited and less than global or universal sense, it is the context that always indicates this. In Genesis 6–9 the context clearly does not limit the meaning of these universal terms. Their repetitious use is emphatic—this was a global Flood.

The Rainbow Covenant

For this short article, a final evidence of the universal extent of the Flood is the Rainbow Covenant in Genesis 9:8–17. Not only does it confirm the supernatural uniqueness of this global catastrophe, it proves its universality. This divine promise was made not just to Noah and his sons but to their families and all their descendants, to the animals and birds and all their offspring and to the earth itself. If the Flood was limited in geographical extent, the Rainbow Covenant has failed (i.e., God lied), for there have been hundreds of devastating local floods since then, which have killed millions of people and animals.

God could not have been more clear in Genesis—this was a unique global catastrophic Flood, an act of divine judgment against a sinful world and, as Jesus said in Matthew 24:37–39, a warning of the coming judgment when Christ returns.

"Flood traditions" (the Gilgamesh Epic, the Atrahasis Epich, etc.), even though not as accurate as the Bible, all say the ark came to rest on a mountain. IMPOSSIBLE with a local flood.

Literary parallels to the biblical account

Which came first: the biblical narrative of the Flood, or the Mesopotamian epics? There are three choices:

    the epics were written first, and the writers of Scripture used them;
    the Bible was written first, and the epics copied them;
    both the Bible and the epics were dependent on a primitive original.

Most scholars insist that the writer of Genesis used elements from local epics, but this is impossible to prove. On the other hand, the theory of a primitive original is based on no evidence whatsoever and is simply an opinion of those who hold to it. Although difficult to prove, the preferred choice is that the biblical record came first and inspired the others.

    The Sumerian Deluge Story

    One of the oldest extrabiblical versions of the Flood story featured the survivor of the Flood, Ziusudra. Found in the Nippur excavations early in the twentieth century, it dates to 1600 BC.

    The Gilgamesh Epic-Tablet XI

    A well-known tale, found in Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite, and Hurrian literature. Even in the Holy Land, a clay tablet (date ca. 1200 BC) was found with this man's name on it. He was the most popular hero in the Ancient Near East. Using the version from Ashurbanipal's library, in 1872, George Smith published the eleventh tablet of the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic as The Chaldean Account of the Deluge. Gilgamesh's name appears among the kings in the Sumerian Kinglist (below). He was of the first dynasty of Uruk (Erech), the earliest period of Mesopotamian history. The Gilgamesh Epic indicates a close link with events immediately following the Flood. Someone who had survived the Flood still lived, possibly Ham. Gilgamesh visited him seeking immortality.

    Atrahasis Epic

    It has astonishing parallels with the biblical account.


Sumerian Kinglist Part II (Post-Flood).

"After the Flood had swept over the earth and when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was first in Kish. . . . in Uruk (biblical Erech) the divine Gilgamesh . . . ruled 126 years . . . its kingship was removed to Ur" (at the peak of its glory). Note that Kish was the first city established after the Flood. Excavations there indicate it was founded about 3000 BC. "Divine" Gilgamesh listed above, actually visited a survivor of the Flood family (see Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh Epic). Therefore, Gilgamesh must have reigned shortly after the Flood regardless what the Kinglist says. There are many other worldwide records of the Flood story in: The Samaritan Pentateuch, Jewish Targums, Berossus, Josephus, the Sibylline Oracles, the Koran, etc.


Radioactive Dating Methods: How are they calibrated?

Although the equipment used to date radioactive materials has become more sophisticated through time, basic problems originally discovered by Willard Libby, inventor of the C14 dating method, still pertain. Calibrated using known dates of Egyptian tomb artifacts, it has proven somewhat accurate back to only about 2000 BC. This has created problems for radio carbon dating older than 5000 BP (Before Present). Dates earlier than that cannot be calibrated since there is no historical material older than 5000 BP. W. Libby himself said: "The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was that our advisors informed us that history extended back only 5000 years. We had initially thought that we would be able to get samples along the curve back to 30,000 years, put the points in, and then our work would be finished . . . We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages are not known; in fact, it is about the time of the first dynasty in Egypt that the last [earliest] historical date of any real certainty has been established"(Libby 1958: 531). Furthermore, as Libby makes clear in his publication, all "dates" higher than 5000 years BP are not absolute dates, but only measure residual C14. Dendrochronology does not help, either, since under certain conditions trees can grow two and sometimes three rings a year.

River Deltas Begin Forming Worldwide about 3000 BC.

Only the worldwide Flood was such a stupendous catastrophe as to make it possible for rivers worldwide to begin flowing at about the same time water on the landmass subsided into deepened oceans, rain fell, and rivers began depositing sediments at their mouths to form deltas. Investigations of these deltas worldwide have revealed that they are only a few thousand years old. The Tigris and Euphrates delta is formed in the Persian Gulf. Many maps of the earliest periods of history show the shoreline as far north as Ur. That means the delta has filled in at least 150 miles during recorded times. Herodotus, the Greek historian, reported that Egyptian priests told him none of the land north of Lake Moeris was above water at the beginning of the First Dynasty (p. 104). The Mississippi River delta was investigated in 1850 and found to be only 40 feet in depth. It has not been flowing very long. One other time-measuring feature -- Niagara Falls -- began falling and receding from Lake Ontario toward Lake Erie, less than 10,000 years ago. The point is that none of these rivers could have been flowing for more than a few thousand years.


Problems with an Early Date

    If the Flood occurred as late as 10,000 BC, one cannot find a 7000 year (or larger) gap in Scripture, or in any of the literature of the Ancient Near East, for that matter, between the Flood and the beginning of historical records from 3000 BC.
    Nor can an explanation be found for the origin of families (nations) mentioned in Genesis 10-11.
    Cush was the grandson of Noah. The descendants of "Cush" built cities whose foundations date no earlier than 3000 BC in almost all cases (Genesis 10). Cities that are claimed to be older: Jericho (7000 BC), Jarmo (6000 BC), etc., were dated by C14 which cannot be calibrated by absolute dates earlier than 5000 years before the present. More caution should be used when considering these early dates.
    Ziggurats and pyramids are later than 3000 BC. If there were earlier civilizations, there is no trace of anything like ziggurats or pyramids at that time. A short time obviously elapsed between the Flood and their construction. But 7000 years? That is longer than the entire history of man since the Flood.
    Geneologies in Genesis 5 and 10 may be stretched slightly, but they cease to be geneologies if large gaps exist. Gaps of 7000 years make them meaningless for genealogical purposes.

Problem with a Late Date

The date of the Great Flood in relation to local floods in the Mesopotamian river basin is, at the present, impossible to determine since a universal Flood completely altered the surface of the earth. However, strong evidence given above suggests a date not long before 5000 BC.

Conclusion: The Flood Occurred 5000 years ago

    1.C14 is not useful in dating before 5000 B.P. according to the discoverer of the method.
    2.River deltas suggest a recent (ca. 3000 BC?) flood.
    3.All written history begins ca. 3000 BC.
    4.Foundations of cities began then.
    5.Families of mankind began then. Geneologies date back to it.
    6.A 10,000 BC (or earlier) flood wreaks havoc with geneologies.
    7.There is no record of a 10,000 BC flood in ANY of the literature.
    8.The Gilgamesh Epic (and other epics) fit well into a 3000 BC date.
    9.The biblical account did not derive from other literature. It is eyewitness testimony.
    10.It is clear from the biblical account that there was a universal flood about 3000 BC.

Are you sure it should be leaning only slightly away? How about buildings which are smaller objects than peaks ? Shouldn't the leaning away be visible?

How?  From 200 km you just get an outline anyway - no depth perception.  As I say, if there is any lean, what would it look like?

From 15-20 km, there should be enough leaning away to be observed, right?

No, the effect would be minute at that distance, that I'm sure about.

I am just saying. Can't give you the exact math.

No, I can't be arsed to do the maths either, but I might have a crack later.  Or anyone else?

cikljamas, could you focus on science, and leave your fairy tales for mythology fans?

Thanks.

    1.C14 is not useful in dating before 5000 B.P. according to the discoverer of the method.
    2.River deltas suggest a recent (ca. 3000 BC?) flood.
    3.All written history begins ca. 3000 BC.
    4.Foundations of cities began then.
    5.Families of mankind began then. Geneologies date back to it.
    6.A 10,000 BC (or earlier) flood wreaks havoc with geneologies.
    7.There is no record of a 10,000 BC flood in ANY of the literature.
    8.The Gilgamesh Epic (and other epics) fit well into a 3000 BC date.
    9.The biblical account did not derive from other literature. It is eyewitness testimony.
    10.It is clear from the biblical account that there was a universal flood about 3000 BC.

Can you please refrain from posting repeated, irrelevant comments of a religious nature that have nothing to do with science—either the flat earth version and/or the round earth version.

There is NO place for discussions about supernatural entities or paranormal phenomena, or the Christian bible on any/all science-based forums.

If you insist on discussing your obsessive, unevidenced religious speculations about our planet, then can I suggest you join something like ReligiousForums.com which is a group of like-minded, fundamentalist, creationist religious apologetics?

Your rigid, absolute and blind acceptance of the Abrahamic bible as being some sort of literal scientific [sic] record of the planet's geophysical  development is in reality absurd from the viewpoint of anybody with even a basic understanding of the earth sciences.

"The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be. Come with me." With those words in 1980 the astronomer Carl Sagan launched "Cosmos," an epic 13-part TV series that brought science to the public like never before, and opened up all of space and time to exploration.

A generation later, Sagan's legacy lives again in "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey," a 21st-century reboot premiering on Fox tonight (March 9). The new "Cosmos" (the original was billed as "A Personal Journey") updates its predecessor with a blend of spectacular visual effects and the latest astronomical discoveries."

Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, etc. are dope dealers, and you are duped dope addicts! If you don't believe me watch this:

Fatal Errors of Big Bang Cosmology : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Cosmological Constant : #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cosmological Constant
Michio Kaku - Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity :  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

If you have enough courage to face the real truth then just open above links, and smoke of marijuana will disperse! As simple as that!

Now, some real science:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637695#msg1637695

The most important geological discovery in the history of the world that has been covered up and still being covered up: #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat?

Now, i believe that you are much better prepared to to grasp the trueness of these conclusions:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637759#msg1637759

" M. Bouquet de la Grye, an eminent hydrographical Engineer, has after long yearsof study calculated the atmospheric expansions and depressions which coincide with spring and neap tides. There have been cases in which air was moved in waves of 133 yards high, and in places where the barometrical pressure was seven-tentns ot an inch, ot six and a half miles. Near the upper surface of the earth's atmosphere condensations and dilations of this magnitude are trequent. The human nervous system may be said to register these air waves. We are only aware that they do so by the discomfort which we feel. The earth also registers them and to its very centre. The incandescent and fluid matter under the earth's crust acts in concert with the air and sea at the full of the moon. In 1889 a German Scientist, Dr. Rebeur Pachwitz, thought he noticed at Wilhelmshaven and Potsdam earth oscillations corresponding with the course of the moon. He wrote to the observatory at Tenerife asking for observations to be ma.de there in December, 1890 and April, 1891, which would be propitious times for them. From these observations and others simultanously made in the sandy plains round Berlin, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE Earth RISES AND FALLS LIKE THE OCEAN OR THE ATMOSPHERE. The movements, common to them all, may be likened to the chest in breathing. — Paris Correspondent Weekly Dispatch."

This is the answer to the question. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides ; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep, shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused ; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.

If above description reveals the true mechanics of tides, could someone explain to me how could the alleged Globe have remained intact instead of being disintegrated under such (great deluge) cataclysmic circumstances (The water pressure would have been about 800 tons per square inch), and how about the alleged rotation of the Earth, how about anything that you still believe presents a true description of reality?

And you know, great deluge have happened, and Jesus Christ have lived and walked on the Earth, not on a damn Globe!

You don't have to belive me, just study and follow the hystorical and real scientific evidences!

STOP WEED SMOKING! And answer the questions if you can!!!

And the question is:

Either there wasn't great deluge (in which case you have to show us compelling historical and scientific evidences for that), or if such a cataclysmic event had happened then you have to be able to consistently conciliate next two assertions:

1. Great deluge had happened!
2. Great deluge could not have happened on a round Earth!

Do i ask too much of you?

Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, etc. are dope dealers, and you are duped dope addicts!

I can only assume that you've posted this puerile comment as some sort of joke?  Or are you really that far out of your depth that you have to resort to childish ad hominem attacks on some of the greatest scientists the world's ever known.

I also say this partly because you then quote Jean Jacques Anatole Bouquet de la Grye, an engineer who died more than 100 years ago as some sort of authority!

You're obviously unaware that science advances logarithmically over time LOL.

1. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP asked, "Was this the hoax of the century?" and exclaimed, "Royal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!" McCausland stated that "In the author's opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein's general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science".

It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.

2.
So, after conning us with the faked Moon missions we are being conned again with coming faked Mars missions, after all black military projects are great devourers of money, and in order to be better monitored by our slave owners we have to provide them (NASA and co.) with stupendous amount of money so that they can establish absolute control over us! Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17050-north-south-3.html

Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 1 of 2.wmv : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

STOP WEED SMOKING!

STOP WEED SMOKING!

Man..... this guy never gives up does he?

           

I guess the laughs are worth it.  Or maybe not?

Smoking, joking, that's all fine with me, but you still have to face the truth, and after that we can all keep smoking and joking as long as you wish... 

Since the great deluge is to hard nut for you, how about one another hard nut:

The visual obstacle from Tunguska measures 7463 km; we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.

That is why this is the very best proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.

Talking about the aurora borealis, which stems from the solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere, presents such a terrible, awful example...  The sun is a much larger object than the particular body which caused the event.  The event occurred in only one area, and the light spread outwards.  light only, not particles like solar flares.

You are trying to change the subject from the event to the aurora borealis where you just say, "see, it has lights."

Instead of focusing on a sun with a greater distance from earth (seen by everyone in FE and RE theory alike) be realistic and focus on the explosion that occurred at 7 km.  That should not have been seen.  Neither should the light from the area have been seen.

Auroras are unrelated.

The Aurora and this event are so unrelated and different that your comparison makes no sense.  Please note the different colors of an aurora borealis, please note the wave like shapes.  Also notice, how an aurora never gets as bright as that.

Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other.  The sun, being seen by everyone, can emit particles that affect large areas.  That scenario just poses a big DUH...  Tunguska was just one localized event within the earth's atmosphere and close to the ground.

Provide just one shred of evidence that an impact from an object and solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere are the same scenario.

The explosion came from just one area...  Solar particles bombard many different portions of the atmosphere at the same time...

..."The sun lies in the open to everyone.  Its rays and flares touch all directions." No, they do not. The particles that create aurora follow specific paths along the Earth's magnetic field lines. Just because sunLIGHT touches all directions, does not mean aurora is a diffuse phenomena. That reasoning is erroneous.

You mean it could not have been visible on a RE, not FE, but I know what you meant.

"In addition, the event lacked UV light and radiation.  No solar radiation = no similarity." UV light and radiation are the same thing...radiation IS light. The way you are discussing this is imprecise. You believe solar radiation consists of UV light only? You should learn what solar radiation IS, and I would be very interested to hear what you know about the spectra of aurora and how THAT SPECIFIC spectra compares with the corresponding waveband of THAT SPECIFIC spectra in the explosion. You must compare the total energy, its distribution, and propagation in this waveband. You must be specific, avoiding qualitative comments such as "it doesn't add up" and instead using quantitative comments like: "if you compare the spatial distribution of the total energy in the range corresponding to ____ to ____ nm, etc..."

This is how we should compare it. Only by addressing the specifics can we lend any credibility to the FE view.

Read more: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60042.125;wap2

I recognize that several posts have been made between your post and this response. This response applies to the post as originally made.

Alpha2Omega, one day you will be one of the best FET apologist, this day is not so far away...

Quote

"So you're technically right that neither of these things is 'proven', but, for the same reason, you'll never be able to 'prove' your model, either."

Sorry, but i am not just technically right, i am absolutely right!

Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.

I kind of figured you'd latch on to that sentence and ignore the rest.

Fine. You're right that these can't be 'proven'; that's what I said. By the same token you can't 'prove' earth doesn't move, either. You can offer evidence, but you can't 'prove' anything. To see why, read the rest of that part of the post.

How about the proofs for the immobility of the Earth?

There are none. But you're going to offer what you consider evidence.

Allow me to present you some of them:

1. Observing the sun directly from the north pole the apparent motion of the sun would be straight line for days, and a camera should have to be slightly adjusted every few hours to cancel out scarcelly perceptible effect due to Earth's alleged rotation which speed is practically zero at North Pole.

Why haven't we seen until this day any such video which could have easily proved Earth's daily rotation? Lack of such video speaks for itself, and presents indirect but strong proof that there is no reason for making such video because such video would prove something else (that the Earth is at rest), and scientists are aware of that truth very well!

Really? Have you tried Google? It's pretty cool and very useful for finding stuff like

midnight sun video

First hit is a link to a youtube video of 24 hours of direct sunlight from the Arctic.

The earth spins at exactly the same angular rate everywhere (360° / sidereal day); the tangential velocity depends on latitude, but the angular rotation is what matters here, and is everywhere the same.

I suppose I am grateful that you didn't simply say "all scientists are liars", so thank you for that. You obviously still mean it, and are still wrong, but this is an improvement, I think.

2. If the Earth was rotating about its axis, someone in Quito, Ecuador would be traveling twice as fast from west to east as someone in Oslo, Norway – at any moment, and at every moment. Meanwhile, someone looking at from the proverbial North Pole, would hardly be moving at all! But is that reality?

Is the correction above (removed replaced) what you meant to say? If not, please advise.

Yes, it is real if you're talking about tangential velocity. If you're talking about angular velocity, then no, they are all the same. When viewing distant celestial objects, the tangential velocity is insignificant, but angular velocity is very significant.

Of course it is not reality, but this supposed fact of Earth's rotation now becomes deadliest error of all, concerning supposed differences of Earth rotational speeds at different latitudes.

If these differences were really the true fact then the speed of apparent motion of all celestial bodies would be twice greater for any observer on the equator than it would be for any observer on the latitude of Oslo.

No. Apparent motion of celestial bodies doesn't depend on the tangential velocity of the observer. It depends only on the angular rate the observer's frame of reference is changing with respect to what he's looking at. This, as already noted, is the same everywhere on earth - Oslo, Quito, north pole.

How hard would be to make an experiment (measurement) of such kind???

It's not hard at all and been done many time with the expected result: the earth rotates exactly as proposed.

3a) If the atmosphere were independent (non rotating but static) from Earth's daily rotation then we would have on the surface of the Earth permanent winds that blow 600 to 1600 km/h. Do you notice permanent winds which blow at such a speed?

No such winds are observed, as you well know, therefore the conjecture is false.

3b) If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist: http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html

In that linked post, you seem to posit supersonic winds near the equator, Mach 1 winds near 45° latitude, and subsonic winds at higher latitudes. Isn't that the same model as 3a), which we both agree is not correct?

If your point in that post is that relative to inertial space, that air coupled to the rotation of the Earth is physically moving at various Mach numbers, well, so what? The ground (and your measuring device) is also moving at the same velocity, so the relative velocity between them (earth and air), which is what matters, is typically a gentle zephyr due to thermal effects. Your pitotstatic tube is going to register the gentle zephyr, not a supersonic gale. Since the instrument illustrated in Fig. 2.1, attached to the Earth, is moving in tandem with the air, which is coupled to and not moving with respect to the earth (neglecting slight winds), there is no Flow, and V = 0.

BTW the term "perpendicular to motion" at the top of Fig. 2.1 of the linked post is wrong. It's "parallel to motion". Note that the white arrows assigned to the former are parallel to the latter, so one can't be perpendicular to motion and the other parallel to motion; they are both going the same way. If you want anyone competent to buy into what you're saying, you're at least going to have to get the basics right, which takes some effort and understanding. If you're just looking to "sell" something to unknowing people, please stop questioning other people's motives.

4. If the Earth were suffering a daily rotation it would generate an incredible deflection on all flying matters in air atmosphere. 5) The inertial motion is terminated in air atmosphere, and thus all dropped objects should land behind their starting positions on a rotating Earth. http://www.energeticforum.com/255938-post21.html

"inertial motion is terminated in air atmosphere" Why do you think this is true? Did you read it somewhere? Do you have any evidence that this is actually the case?

Air applies drag against objects moving within it, which resists the motion. Inertia is preserved, but slowly transferred from the moving object to the air.

5. To be pression or to be gravity? The choice of Earth’s rotation (the cause of pression), should repel the gravity from Earth. Consequently, the heliocentric model looses the most precious element. The choice of gravity should remove the concept of Earth’s rotation from the cosmos motion, consequently; the journey of the Earth around the sun becomes useless since half of the Earth should be always in darkness and the second half should be always in lightness.

Presson? What does this mean? It's French for "pressure" (I think), but even with that substitution this still reads like nonsense. Can you restate this?

6. No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

Stating this, even using florid language, doesn't mean it's true. Are you quoting Rowbotham again?

There are many experiments that support a rotating earth, not least, the variation of gravity as a function of latitude.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm

I don't see any of those names in the cited link.

The linked article is so wrong it would be funny, except way too many people might accept it because of the Victorian-Era language and a desire to disbelieve what competent high-school physics shows, perhaps because they weren't any good at high-school physics.

The fundamental flaw is here (from your linked text):

Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but

FIG. 47.

because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D [actually, it will follow a parabolic path a from A to D despite the incorrect assertion in the final paragraph in this section]. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, [ B]; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, [hold it right there! The upward motion will be 'expended' because gravity is causing a downward acceleration, but the horizontal component continues as before - what is resisting it?] the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; [no, it won't; it will accelerate downward, but still continues to the right because nothing (except drag, which is gradual, not abrupt) is slowing the motion in that direction] but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it [no, it will meet the ship at S, because there's no reason that motion to the right will suddenly stop at D - why would it?].

7. NO CAUSE OF EARTH'S ROTATION WHATSOEVER: retains the state of illusion. The most important element in heliocentric model is the Earth’s rotation about its polar axis. What is the cause of Earth’s rotation? No one has attributed the cause of Earth’s rotation to any type of action or force even though they have attributed the cause of orbital motion (revolution) to Newton’s law of gravity.

Conservation of momentum from the formation of the solar system.

8. NO CAUSE OF THE ROTATION OF THE AIR-LAYER: 2) The rotation of the air-layer next to the rigid Earth is without cause, and lacks a technique and tool. Perhaps, one may envision the whole rigid sphere undergoes a rotation about its polar axis. But, how one can envision the air atmosphere (the surface layer) rotates with the rigid sphere without an engineering method (e.g.air foil). In addition, what maintains the air’s rotation for tens of thousands of years (we are practical people) without stop. The rotation of the background air is the greatest hoax ever invented by mankind.

Viscous drag from the surface. If you take a glass of water and rotate the glass a few times, the water will overcome its inertia and rotate with it. This isn't mysterious and easily seen.

9. CONCLUSIVE INFERENCE ABOUT THE EQUATION OF TIME ISSUE: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435

You're still confused about what that graph means. Already refuted here. Stamping your foot and insisting "I'm right, all the rest of you are wrong" is called a tantrum, not proof.

Arthur Eddington dared to contemplate that:

    "There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."

Lincoln Barnett agrees:

    "No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."

Where are these quotes from? They sound like they're taken out of context.

So, when all attempts to prove any kind of motion of the Earth FAIL, what does it mean?

It means that the contrary is the fact: The Earth is at rest!

It means no such thing. Failure to 'prove' the earth moves is not itself 'proof' that earth is at rest. See why scientists refrain from saying they can prove something a few posts ago after your points 4. and 5. The evidence (not 'proof') is strongly in favor of a moving earth, and weak to nonexistent for a fixed earth.

Every failure of all these attempts presents the proof to the contrary : The Earth is at rest!

Negative. Failure to prove something doesn't automatically prove an alternative. You should know that.

If you don't want to make me laugh, then you cannot just say: O.K., we have failed to prove Earth's motion but there is still some chance that we could succeed to prove it in some distant future?

In how distant future? When we inhabit another galaxy? Come on, cut the crap, please![/b][/u]

See why scientists refrain from saying they can prove something a few posts ago after your points 4. and 5..
 

Quote

Anyway, if you had used the correct figure, it would have made your next point stronger (but still wrong).

EXACTLY! Thanks for helping me make it TWICE stronger!

Quote

What does "direction of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax maybe" mean? Isn't "direction ... will have greatly changed" the opposite of "however small the angle"?

Here is the answer:

In the " History of the Conflict between Religion and Science," by Dr. Draper, pages 175 and 176, the matter is referred to m the following words :

" Among the arguments brought forward against the Copernican system at the time of its promulgation, was one by the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them... At that time the sun's distance was greatly under-estimated. Had it been known, as it is now, that the distance exceeds 90 million miles, or that the diameter of the orbit is more than 180 million, that argument would doubtless have had very great weight. In reply to Tycho, it was said that, since the parallax of a body diminishes as its distance increases, a star may be so far off that its parallax may be imperceptible. THIS ANSWER PROVED TO BE CORRECT."

To the uninitiated, the words " this answer proved to be correct," might seem to settle the matter, and while it must be admitted that parallax is diminished or increased according as the star is distant or near, parallax and direction are very different terms and convey quite different meanings. Tycho stated that the direction of the stars would be altered ; his critics replied that the distance gave no sensible difference of parallax. This maybe set down as ingenious, but it is no answer to the proposition, which has remained unanswered to this hour, and is unanswerable.

What's the problem? You're still wrong. Even with a 180-million-mile baseline (instead of your erroneous 90 million), the stars are so distant that parallax was imperceptible to Tycho. With better instruments and better techniques, stellar parallax is no longer imperceptible. That last paragraph makes little sense. Exactly what is meant by 'direction' that is different from 'parallax' in this context? Their positions appear to shift as we move in orbit; that's parallax.

Why is this difficult to understand?

Stamping your foot and insisting "I'm right, all the rest of you are wrong" is called a tantrum, not proof.

I guess we're done with your objection to Crux being circumpolar. Remember, you said yourself that it was.

Have you solved the apparent retrograde motion of the outer planets yet?

[Edit] Minor corrections and formatting fixes needed due to hitting Post instead of Preview.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 09, 2014, 08:33:18 AM

@Saros, I understand what you mean about them "leaning away", but how much do you think this would be by? 

More importantly, how would you ever perceive it?  How would a large object 200km away leaning slightly away from you look any different from one that wasn't?

Are you sure it should be leaning only slightly away?

Yes, and I've done the maths now.  Using this formula:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x |P1 - P2| / radius)

so using a distance of 200 km and earth radius of 6371 km:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x 200 / 6371)

angle = 1.9 degrees


This would obviously be imperceptible whilst looking at a mountain range 200km away.

Quote

These models (you call them "assumptions") are verified by actual observations and measurements as we go, though. Sometimes better observations result in better measurements that require earlier models to be revised or occasionally thrown out altogether. This is how science works.

Bull s h i t! Don't call this crap "science"? What actual observations are you talking about?

Gravitation is a clever illustration of the art of hocus-pocus—heads I win, tails you lose ; Newton won his fame, and the people lost their senses.

You have presented no evidence what I said was wrong, instead you just call it "BS", "crap", "hocus-pocus" and (again) declare victory. This is followed by more quotes out of context and the repetition of an unsubstantiated report that Polaris was visible to "a noble men" [sic] from well south of the equator.

Get a grip.

Quote from: Saros on November 09, 2014, 10:51:29 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 09, 2014, 08:33:18 AM

@Saros, I understand what you mean about them "leaning away", but how much do you think this would be by? 

More importantly, how would you ever perceive it?  How would a large object 200km away leaning slightly away from you look any different from one that wasn't?

Are you sure it should be leaning only slightly away?

Yes, and I've done the maths now.  Using this formula:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x |P1 - P2| / radius)

so using a distance of 200 km and earth radius of 6371 km:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x 200 / 6371)

angle = 1.9 degrees


This would obviously be imperceptible whilst looking at a mountain range 200km away.

I think you're mistaken. In your opinion the height of the observed objects doesn't matter? It is not imperceptible. This sounds counterintuitive.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 10, 2014, 10:46:22 AM

Quote from: Saros on November 09, 2014, 10:51:29 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 09, 2014, 08:33:18 AM

@Saros, I understand what you mean about them "leaning away", but how much do you think this would be by? 

More importantly, how would you ever perceive it?  How would a large object 200km away leaning slightly away from you look any different from one that wasn't?

Are you sure it should be leaning only slightly away?

Yes, and I've done the maths now.  Using this formula:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x |P1 - P2| / radius)

so using a distance of 200 km and earth radius of 6371 km:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x 200 / 6371)

angle = 1.9 degrees


This would obviously be imperceptible whilst looking at a mountain range 200km away.

I think you're mistaken. In your opinion the height of the observed objects doesn't matter? It is not imperceptible. This sounds counterintuitive.

Lots of things are counter-intuitive.

Quote from: Saros on November 09, 2014, 10:51:29 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 09, 2014, 08:33:18 AM

@Saros, I understand what you mean about them "leaning away", but how much do you think this would be by? 

More importantly, how would you ever perceive it?  How would a large object 200km away leaning slightly away from you look any different from one that wasn't?

Are you sure it should be leaning only slightly away?

Yes, and I've done the maths now.  Using this formula:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x |P1 - P2| / radius)

so using a distance of 200 km and earth radius of 6371 km:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x 200 / 6371)

angle = 1.9 degrees


This would obviously be imperceptible whilst looking at a mountain range 200km away.

It's easier than that.

angle = d / r
 = 200 / 6371
 = 0.0314 radians

Since a full 360 degrees is 2 pi radians, 180 degrees is pi radians. To convert from radians to degrees, multiply by 180 and divide by pi (3.14159...).

angle = 0.0314 radians * 180 degrees/pi radians
 = 1.80 degrees

I got 1.8 degrees using your formula, too, not 1.9. This uses 200 km as the distance along the surface; your formula uses 200 km as the chord. The difference is about 8 meters in this case, so the difference is waaayyyyy down in the noise. How good is that "200 km", after all, and 6371 is an average value for earth radius.

How good is that "200 km", after all,

The picture showing the pier, building, etc, shows where the spot is on GE to within a meter or two, and I get 200.22km with the ruler tool, measuring to the mountain 'info icon' at the peak.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on November 10, 2014, 04:31:23 PM

How good is that "200 km", after all,

The picture showing the pier, building, etc, shows where the spot is on GE to within a meter or two, and I get 200.22km with the ruler tool, measuring to the mountain 'info icon' at the peak.

Thanks. 8 meters is definitely "in the noise".

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 10, 2014, 10:46:22 AM

Quote from: Saros on November 09, 2014, 10:51:29 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 09, 2014, 08:33:18 AM

@Saros, I understand what you mean about them "leaning away", but how much do you think this would be by? 

More importantly, how would you ever perceive it?  How would a large object 200km away leaning slightly away from you look any different from one that wasn't?

Are you sure it should be leaning only slightly away?

Yes, and I've done the maths now.  Using this formula:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x |P1 - P2| / radius)

so using a distance of 200 km and earth radius of 6371 km:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x 200 / 6371)

angle = 1.9 degrees


This would obviously be imperceptible whilst looking at a mountain range 200km away.

It's easier than that.

angle = d / r
 = 200 / 6371
 = 0.0314 radians

Since a full 360 degrees is 2 pi radians, 180 degrees is pi radians. To convert from radians to degrees, multiply by 180 and divide by pi (3.14159...).

angle = 0.0314 radians * 180 degrees/pi radians
 = 1.80 degrees

I got 1.8 degrees using your formula, too, not 1.9.

Ooop, my mistake - typo.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on November 10, 2014, 04:31:23 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 10, 2014, 10:46:22 AM

Quote from: Saros on November 09, 2014, 10:51:29 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 09, 2014, 08:33:18 AM

@Saros, I understand what you mean about them "leaning away", but how much do you think this would be by? 

More importantly, how would you ever perceive it?  How would a large object 200km away leaning slightly away from you look any different from one that wasn't?

.
Are you sure it should be leaning only slightly away?

Yes, and I've done the maths now.  Using this formula:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x |P1 - P2| / radius)

so using a distance of 200 km and earth radius of 6371 km:

angle = 2 x arcsin (0.5 x 200 / 6371)

angle = 1.9 degrees


This would obviously be imperceptible whilst looking at a mountain range 200km away.

It's easier than that.

angle = d / r
 = 200 / 6371
 = 0.0314 radians

Since a full 360 degrees is 2 pi radians, 180 degrees is pi radians. To convert from radians to degrees, multiply by 180 and divide by pi (3.14159...).

angle = 0.0314 radians * 180 degrees/pi radians
 = 1.80 degrees

I got 1.8 degrees using your formula, too, not 1.9.

Ooop, my mistake - typo.

You guys are very confused. Using a formula you get some results and of course you believe them immediately. It is mathematics after all. This formula is wrong, and it is common sense that if there is a curvature the objects will lean more especially if they are tall enough when observed from a big distance. You go tell this 1.9% to someone else, I am not buying that math, as it is wrong to anyone with half a brain, but you apparently. That might be useful in high school to get an A but not in real life. Not to mention, that I was misleading you by claiming that you can't see they are leaning away. I just wanted to see how confused you are. You can see they are leaning away, but you guys are so big fans of math that you just proved you know nothing about reality, and supposedly you just proved that any leaning away shouldn't be visible, when in fact it is. Good job! Great math. Great logic. Congratulations!!! Enjoy your math world, which has nothing to do with reality. Now I am finally convinced you know nothing about the shape of the planet, because your knowledge is not based on real, first-hand observations, experiments and analysis, but on mathematical equations, which assume unproven facts.

I think you're mistaken.

Then demonstrate as much.

In your opinion the height of the observed objects doesn't matter? It is not imperceptible. This sounds counterintuitive.

Intuition is a terrible tool to use in these situations - which is why I used maths.  The human brain simply isn't evolved to deal with problems like this intuitively.

You guys are very confused. Using a formula you get some results and of course you believe them immediately. It is mathematics after all. This formula is wrong, and it is common sense that if there is a curvature the objects will lean more especially if they are tall enough when observed from a big distance. You go tell this 1.9% to someone else, I am not buying that math, as it is wrong to anyone with half a brain, but you apparently. That might be useful in high school to get an A but not in real life. Not to mention, that I was misleading you by claiming that you can't see they are leaning away. I just wanted to see how confused you are. You can see they are leaning away, but you guys are so big fans of math that you just proved you know nothing about reality, and supposedly you just proved that any leaning away shouldn't be visible, when in fact it is. Good job! Great math. Great logic. Congratulations!!! Enjoy your math world, which has nothing to do with reality. Now I am finally convinced you know nothing about the shape of the planet, because your knowledge is not based on real, first-hand observations, experiments and analysis, but on mathematical equations, which assume unproven facts.

You lose the debate, so you throw your toys out the pram?

If you think 1.8% is wrong for the predicated lean, then offer another figure, obviously based on "on real, first-hand observations, experiments and analysis".

Quote from: Saros on November 10, 2014, 01:57:49 PM

I think you're mistaken.

Then demonstrate as much.

Quote

In your opinion the height of the observed objects doesn't matter? It is not imperceptible. This sounds counterintuitive.

Intuition is a terrible tool to use in these situations - which is why I used maths.  The human brain simply isn't evolved to deal with problems like this intuitively.

So the human brain is not evolved enough. Amazing revelation which, of course, your brain made about itself.

Does mathematics come from an alien brain somehow then?

Are you saying that when you use mathematics you're not using your brain(because it is not evolved enough), because that is what it sounds like.

You do realize that without your brain you can use neither math nor intuition?

If you think 1.8% is wrong for the predicated lean, then offer another figure, obviously based on "on real, first-hand observations, experiments and analysis".

That will happen 

What's done can't be undone.   

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 11, 2014, 02:35:12 AM

Quote from: Saros on November 10, 2014, 01:57:49 PM

I think you're mistaken.

Then demonstrate as much.

Quote

In your opinion the height of the observed objects doesn't matter? It is not imperceptible. This sounds counterintuitive.

Intuition is a terrible tool to use in these situations - which is why I used maths.  The human brain simply isn't evolved to deal with problems like this intuitively.

So the human brain is not evolved enough. Amazing revelation which, of course, your brain made about itself.

You seem to have terrible problems with reading comprehension.   I said:

"The human brain simply isn't evolved to deal with problems like this intuitively"

Which is why we invented maths, logic and science.


Now instead of ranting, why don't you address the point we were debating?  If you think 1.8% is wrong, then show us what you think it should be and why we are wrong.

On GOD:

"The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." Carl Sagan

According to above logic we should assume that one of next two options must be true:

1. The cosmos is eternal
2. The cosmos is not eternal, but still is "all that is, or ever was, or ever will be"

If 1 then the cosmos is just another word for God! - What is wrong with such an idiotic identification? This is what is wrong: - The true meaning of a word "God" is: A being which cannot not to be!!! Such Being can't be created since God has no need to have been created, He exists outside time, but the cosmos HAS NEED TO HAVE BEEN CREATED and IS submitted to the second law of thermodynamics!

If 2 then the cosmos popped into existence out of nothing, and one of the most basic philosophical principles is EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT which means that there is no such thing as "creation caused by nothing", or as "created entity that comes out of nothing."
Of course, there is one necessary "exception": God himself! God is Absolute, Uncontingent Being, Essence of Existence, Actus Purus, First - Necessary Cause, Unmoved Mover, God exists forever and ever, He is a Giver of all contingent existences, but He Himself is Unlimited! God had introduced Himself to Moses using perfectly consistent philosophical definition: "I AM THAT I AM"! (IHWH).

In Ex. 3:13-14, Moses asks God, “Whom should I say has sent me?” and God responds by saying, “I AM that I AM… You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” However, it could be awkward for Moses to go to the Israelites and Pharaoh and say, “I am has sent me.” So, in Ex. 3:15 God revises this phrase and changes it to the third person by saying, “Tell them that ‘He is’ has sent you.”

The word “He is” comes from the Hebrew root word haya, which means, “to be.” It is the third person form of this word, “He is,” that becomes the name Yahweh.

It was not God's intention to be Hidden from us, to be Hidden God, He revealed Himself to us:

- In the philosophy
- In "the book of nature" (creation)
- In the Bible (in history)

God even became one of us, and took our sins away! It is hard to understand such a great love, but it is possible for us to believe that such a perfect love can exist! Creation itself is a token of God's perfect love towards us!

What we think about the world - our Weltanschauung - cannot legitimately be excluded from the domain of religion. As St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Contra Gentiles (Bk. II, ch. 3): "It is absolutely false to maintain, with reference to the truths of our faith, that what we believe regarding the creation is of no consequence, so long as one has an exact conception concerning God; because an error regarding the nature of creation always gives rise to a false idea about God." I would add that I perceive the contemporary penchant for accommodating the teachings of Christianity to the so-called truths of science as a striking confirmation of this Thomistic principle: a case, almost invariably, of scientistic errors begetting flawed theological ideas. I will go so far as to contend that religion goes astray the moment it relinquishes its just rights in the so-called natural domain nowadays occupied by science.

I believe that the contemporary crisis of faith and the ongoing de-Christianization of Western society have much to do with the fact that for centuries the material world has been left to the mercy of the scientists. This has of course been said many times before (YET NOT NEARLY OFTEN ENOUGH!)

Theodore Roszak, for one, has put it exceptionally well: "SCIENCE IS OUR RELIGION, BECAUSE WE CANNOT, MOST OF US, WITH ANY LIVING CONVICTION SEE AROUND IT!

Oskar Milosz (1877-1939), a European writer said: "UNLESS A MAN'S CONCEPT OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE ACCORDS WITH REALITY, HIS SPIRITUAL LIFE WILL BE CRIPPLED AT ITS ROOTS, WITH DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES FOR EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF HIS LIFE." It could not have been better said!

Nowadays there are some who say that the method of St. Thomas is too scholastic and artificial, that it is not sufficiently historical and real. It is, so they say, too much an a priori method, almost always a process of deduction and analysis, or else in the analysis itself there is too much abstraction. It even seems at times to confound logical abstractions with the objectivity of things.

For them, the abstract object not only is not concrete, but it is not real. Thus the essence of man, of virtue, of society, and such things, would not be anything real, and the whole of metaphysics, not excepting the principle of contradiction, would be reduced to logic, logical abstractions, logical being, or, as they say, to extreme intellectualism that is without reality and lifeless. They would not dare to say explicitly that the abstract principle of contradiction (that some thing cannot at the same time be and not be) is not a law of real being but only a logical law governing the operations of the mind, as the laws of syllogism are. To such extreme admission, however, is one brought by this silly and at the present day common enough objection.


ON MOTION:

Every failure of all these attempts (to prove any kind of motion of the Earth) presents the proof to the contrary: The Earth is at rest!

Why is that so?

- If something is not white, doesn't mean that it is black, it can also be variety of colors.
- If something is not circular, doesn't mean that it is triangular, it can also be square, pentagonal etc...
- But, if something is not in motion, IT DOES MEAN THAT IT IS AT REST! 

Time lapse photography proves it: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1635830#msg1635830


ON THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH:

1. Rowbotham has EXPERIMENTALLY proved tht the surface of all waters on the Earth is flat!

2. Photographs of a distant mountains proves it - horizon calculator is wrong: http://www.energeticforum.com/258148-post188.html

3. Plane Sailing proves it: http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html

4. River beds prove it: http://www.energeticforum.com/265601-post587.html

5. Eye level horizon (no matter how high we ascend) proves it: http://www.energeticforum.com/266709-post615.html

6. Engineering proves it: http://www.energeticforum.com/265582-post583.html

7. The real mechanics of tides proves it: http://www.energeticforum.com/266629-post613.html

8. "SAROS" ARGUMENT PROVES IT:

The whole thing with the water encircling the Earth is kind of nonsensical. We know that rivers flow down to the oceans. On a globe there can't be up and down (so they claim), so why exactly water flows down to the oceans if the oceans also have an incline and are not flat. Actually of course a round sphere has a top and a bottom. Doesn't make sense at all. The oceans would destroy the land completely if the Earth were round and somehow the water managed to stick to the surface. They would constantly push on to land till they cut through it. That is how water behaves if it is on a slope and meets a barrier on its way. If there is an incline to water then you wouldn't need wind to sail, you would just go down with the flow. A round surface gives you the incline, so it doesn't make sense.

9. Great deluge proves it!

10. Tunguska proves it!


On INTUITION:

Saros, you are absolutely right!