flat earth.

[JStates]

Man, this planet frustrates me. Ever since I had my Damascus-Road-like experience, and having felt the overwhelming Peace and Love of the Holy Spirit to the degree that it almost took my life . . . I am frustrated with the bitterness shared between "christians." I can't stand it and quite frankly, I can't wait to leave this place. In fact, when I found out that I had cancer, I was relieved! I'm dead serious.

Funny you say that. God finally broke me down in 2016 after years of rebellion. In those first few years after my salvation so many terrible things happened that I just lost all joy or zeal for living. It's getting better now, but I'm still in a place where I cannot wait to leave this filthy mortality behind and finally meet Christ and be like Him. There's really nothing making me want to stay in this life any longer. I guess there's a reason for me to still be here or God would have taken me already. But I understand where you are coming from.

I'm sorry to hear about your cancer. I hope you aren't suffering too much from it.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

It's getting better now, but I'm still in a place where I cannot wait to leave this filthy mortality behind and finally meet Christ and be like Him. There's really nothing making me want to stay in this life any longer. I guess there's a reason for me to still be here or God would have taken me already. But I understand where you are coming from.

I think that you'll appreciate my laughter over this section of your post. I get it!! "Filthy mortality" lol!

You, my friend, I'm sure, understand that the Word Endurance is a most Holy Word. We are Enabled to Endure. Endure what? Peaches and cream? No, True Christians will Endure difficulty and strife, thus the Lord loves the poor and oppressed.

We are the lucky ones.

As for my cancer, there's more to the story. As it turns out, and though it does weigh on my heart, I have like the least killing form of cancer there is. So, it won't like kill me, but there is always the anticipation of it's becoming worse and then dealing with low quality of life. Uggg . . . I prefer death rather than a low quality of life.

Regardless, I am thankful for each day. Not a day goes by that I do not thank the Lord for my health and all that I do have. And while I am consistently surrounded by the chaos of this earth (man, it is crazy!), I know that I am so lucky for having been "Chosen."

I'm glad to have run into you, here. You seem to be a kindred spirit.

 

[JStates]

I think that you'll appreciate my laughter over this section of your post. I get it!! "Filthy mortality" lol!

You, my friend, I'm sure, understand that the Word Endurance is a most Holy Word. We are Enabled to Endure. Endure what? Peaches and cream? No, True Christians will Endure difficulty and strife, thus the Lord loves the poor and oppressed.

We are the lucky ones.

As for my cancer, there's more to the story. As it turns out, and though it does weigh on my heart, I have like the least killing form of cancer there is. So, it won't like kill me, but there is always the anticipation of it's becoming worse and then dealing with low quality of life. Uggg . . . I prefer death rather than a low quality of life.

Regardless, I am thankful for each day. Not a day goes by that I do not thank the Lord for my health and all that I do have. And while I am consistently surrounded by the chaos of this earth (man, it is crazy!), I know that I am so lucky for having been "Chosen."

I'm glad to have run into you, here. You seem to be a kindred spirit.

I feel the same, friend! And you are absolutely correct; Christ did promise us trials and suffering after all. Any good thing we get in this life is a blessing and a gift, not an entitlement.

Well, you seem like an interesting character and I'm sure there's a reason for you to be here as well. So I'm glad to hear you hopefully won't go popping off this mortal coil any time soon.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

popping off this mortal coil any time soon.

Oh man . . . it's good to come here and laugh! I appreciate it.

 

[JStates]

Oh man . . . it's good to come here and laugh! I appreciate it.

It's the best medicine!

 

[Sculpt]

Great question. I think this is considered THE "Gotcha!" for Flat Earth right now. And I'll freely admit I don't have a 100% solid answer but this one is pretty decent. This from a guy named Jeranism who does stuff with Globebusters.

The above video specifically addresses the subjectiveness of our individual perspectives as related (mostly) to the Sun. What is happening with the moon inversion you describe is almost certainly happening with the Sun as well, but we cannot perceive it easily because the Sun is so intensely bright that we cannot look directly at it or discern features on it easily.

But understand that whether we live on a globe or on a flat Earth realm, YOU CANNOT TRUST YOUR EYES ultimately. For example, while looking across a body of water, there will be more air humidity and air density right above sea level, a gradient which drops off with elevation. This causes a lensing effect and distortion at sea level. Gaining altitude helps mitigate this for the observer. But this is why, if you think about it, you are never actually seeing the Sun (or Moon, I guess) directly without some positional distortion. Jeran's video explains this very well.

We're told the human eye has an infinite view distance because we can see the stars infinitely far from us. What rubbish. Think about it a bit, it's a complete fantasy. Sorry, that's a rabbit trail, but the thought just popped into my head all of a sudden.

Hi JStates! Glad to have you here! Please don't tie FE with your faith in Christ. You won't always think FE is likely correct.

What time mark in the video does it explain why the moon appears to be upside down in the northern hemisphere compared with the southern? I didn't see it addressed. Thanks!

I remember many years ago when one night I dove into the flat earth model. It was such a beautiful model. I loved it. The concept was working in so many applications. I loved it so much I had to think of one way to demonstrate to myself it was most likely incorrect before I went to bed.

I had a had a globe right next to me, and the internet. The FE model puts the southern tip of South America on the other side of the plate from the SE tip of Australia. I took a string and calculated the global distance between Santiago, Chile and Sydney, Australia, calculated the time it would take to fly in both models, and then saw if I could book a nonstop flight and what the flight time would be (ie, distance). I went to bed comfortably.

I just looked anew. Quantas does have nonstop Sydney to Johannesburg S Africa, goes past Antartica. Grab your FE model, scale it, and compare it to globe. What does the flight time tell you is the correct model?

Here's a standard FE map. We can agree Santiago to Sydney is more than twice as far away as Santiago to Los Angeles, yes? With the links (below the map) you can - literally right now - book a flight nonstop from Santiago to Sydney 12hrs-30mins; Santiago to Los Angeles nonstop is 11hrs-15mins. You know why, right? Verify it for yourself. The links to these specific flights will likely expire, but you can update the flights.

SYD to SCL, 3/27 (kayak.com)
SCL to LAX flights (expedia.com)

 

[JStates]

Hi JStates! Glad to have you here! Please don't tie FE with your faith in Christ. You won't always think FE is likely correct.

What time mark in the video does it explain why the moon appears to be upside down in the northern hemisphere compared with the southern? I didn't see it addressed. Thanks!

I remember many years ago when one night I dove into the flat earth model. It was such a beautiful model. I loved it. The concept was working in so many applications. I loved it so much I had to think of one way to demonstrate to myself it was most likely incorrect before I went to bed.

I had a had a globe right next to me, and the internet. The FE model puts the southern tip of South America on the other side of the plate from the SE tip of Australia. I took a string and calculated the global distance between Santiago, Chile and Sydney, Australia, calculated the time it would take to fly in both models, and then saw if I could book a nonstop flight and what the flight time would be (ie, distance). I went to bed comfortably.

I just looked anew. Quantas does have nonstop Sydney to Johannesburg S Africa, goes past Antartica. Grab your FE model, scale it, and compare it to globe. What does the flight time tell you is the correct model?

Here's a standard FE map. We can agree Santiago to Sydney is more than twice as far away as Santiago to Los Angeles, yes? With the links (below the map) you can - literally right now - book a flight nonstop from Santiago to Sydney 12hrs-30mins; Santiago to Los Angeles nonstop is 11hrs-15mins. You know why, right? Verify it for yourself. The links to these specific flights will likely expire, but you can update the flights.

SYD to SCL, 3/27 (kayak.com)
SCL to LAX flights (expedia.com)

Thanks for your post! And that is good advice not to tie my faith in Christ to the flat earth. And I can certainly still consider Christians who do not see things the same way to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.

It's been a while since I studied out the flight paths stuff. I'll have to look over your post in more detail when I get some time. There's a book called "16 Emergency Landings Proving Flat Earth" - by a Brazilian international pilot, I might add - that you should check out. I will say there are shenanigans involved with how flight paths are plotted out, and things like the jetstreams can be used to modify "normal" travel times as the winds on a flat earth model form concentric bands around the center and can be used to rapidly expedite air travel.

I should probably have explained the video a bit when I posted it; it's going to be a bit tough without pictures. The video talked about the subjective nature of viewing the sun, not the moon, but the principle can apply. The individuals north and south of the equator each have a personal lens/bubble/dome formed by the atmosphere that modifies the objective reality and presents each of them with a subjective, warped one. The video demonstrated how this works for perception of the sun and how the perceived position is therefore not the actual position. I think from looking at the video that this would result in an inversion of the sun as well, but since the sun is very bright and features cannot be observed with the naked eye, unlike the moon, the effect hasn't been mentioned by anyone. Working hypothesis.

I'm going to try to reproduce this in a way that illustrates the inversion effect. I might try to do it with software like what jeran used, but I'm planning to do some shopping tomorrow after work for some supplies to perform a physical experiment if I can. Not going to make promises about a timetable, but if I have good results I may make a video about it and link it here.

 

[Gideon300]

You're continual false judgments of my heart are not a reflection of me, but of yourself. What you don't understand is that I listen to all sides. I think that there are amazing arguments for each. I am neither a flat-earther or round-earther, but if I had to lean to one side, I would easily say round.

And no, I don't have arguments against gravity because quite frankly, I could care less. I am talking within this thread because I find it interesting, and certainly not to be judged false by likes of yourself. How boring to be judged.



Good for you. What . . . do you want applause or something? Unbelievable.

Look, I think that the "astronauts" were freaked out for their first press conference discussion with the audience for a reason. I know that you agree that their excitement [before] their "flight" was absolutely non-existent when they "arrived" [back] to earth. So why? Why would they behave so oddly?

Apollo 11 Press Conference - YouTube

I would say because they were either threatened to not expose their sham of a "flight" or . . . they actually DID walk the moon and were shocked by the things they saw while there. So, Mr. Gid . . . what am I saying? I'm saying that they [could have] made the actual trip to the moon.

Are you satisfied? How many others are you harassing until they fold? Why does this do for you? And, why must you press and press with childish sarcasm so as to receive the result you seem to be so desperately looking for? Wouldn't maturity be an option?

Exhausting. Writing posts like the one above is such a waste of time . . . there are people that actually need help in this world, and you want to grill me over non-sense. Do you feel better, now?

Feel free not to reply to anything I say, especially if it's not addressed to you. If I commented in the wrong post, my apologies. My remarks are generally to JStates.

 

[Gideon300]

Serious flat earthers don't believe there is an edge. The depiction of a solar system with a flat cracker Earth put in place of a planet Earth is pure disinformation. No serious informed flat earther believes this.

The Earth plane is the "basement of the universe." The continents stand out of the great deep and Antarctica is a ring around the circular "pond" which are the Earth's oceans. Beyond Antarctica, regions of ice extend outwards in all directions for an unknown distance.

(Job 38:30) "The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen."

Not a video I 100% agree with, but pretty solid:

No answer to the gravity question?

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Feel free not to reply to anything I say

In other words, just put you on the blocklist. Sure. That's what I did with you on the last site because of your same general attitude.

And as for your quote above . . . thanks for your permission to "feel free."

 

[JStates]

No answer to the gravity question?

Well, I do need to sleep, eat, and go to work. I'm also getting a bit muddled since I'm in several flat earth threads right now; I'm losing track of where I have posted stuff. I posted a pretty satisfactory answer about gravity somewhere but there are some additional thoughts I'd like to throw out there, so here goes:

First off, one flat earther recently put things really well. He said that we can conclusively prove that the Establishment is lying to us about the globe, but that does not mean that the flat earth community can explain every natural phenomenon with 100% certainty. Seeing the lie and knowing all the secrets of the universe are two different things. Additionally, the recent flat earth resurgence has only been around since 2012-2014, so obviously the glober establishment has a really big head start and are quite entrenched. I agree with him on all this 100%.

Newton did not discover gravity; he only came up with an explanation of it: mass attracting mass in the view of modern scientism. It's a theory that has never been proven. Now let's be clear. Things fall. No one, not even flat earthers, disagrees with that. I think flat earthers do themselves a disservice by saying things like, "Gravity doesn't exist" and then not thoroughly explaining what they mean. What they mean is that the explanation of mass attracting mass is inadequate. So let's talk about gravity's acceleration of ~9.8 m/s^2. That's an observational fact. I'm not denying that. But is it mass attracting mass that is CAUSING that? Unknown. We can use the observational FACT of 9.8 m/s^2 to make predictions without signing off on the concept of mass attracting mass.

But let's say - for the sake of argument - that gravity works exactly like modern scientism tells us. "Gravity IS mass attracting mass." That's not a problem for a flat earth model at all. Why not? Because if the sun and moon are small and local, WHERE IS ALL THE MASS IN A FLAT EARTH MODEL? In the Earth, which means stuff is still going to fall down towards the Earth.

But - and think about this really carefully - the idea that gravity IS mass attracting mass is actually HUGELY PROBLEMATIC for the heliocentric model. In order for the heliocentric model to apply, gravity has to be SELECTIVELY APPLIED. The Sun only captures planets. The planets only capture moons. Why don't the moons have moons have moons have moons? We should see incredible complex stepped gravitational systems all the time. Why doesn't a planetary alignment, when all the planets line up and all that gravity is pulling things in one direction - why doesn't this RIP entire planets out of their orbits? Why don't we feel a shock here on Earth whenever Mars or Venus are nearby, pulling us in a different direction? Why, when the Moon is slingshotting around the Earth in the direction of the Sun, doesn't the Sun capture it and rip it away since all the momentum AND the Sun's gravity should be moving it towards the Sun and not the Earth?

This is called the "three body problem" in science. Gravity can be modeled perfectly between two objects, a planet and moon or a planet and sun, etc. But when you add a third body, each body is acting on the other TWO which will degrade any orbits involved. With an entire solar system of bodies acting on each other... the system would not sustain itself in an orderly fashion for even a year without degrading. You would never have an order cycle, not even once.

 

[Sculpt]

Thanks for your post! And that is good advice not to tie my faith in Christ to the flat earth. And I can certainly still consider Christians who do not see things the same way to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.

It's been a while since I studied out the flight paths stuff. I'll have to look over your post in more detail when I get some time. There's a book called "16 Emergency Landings Proving Flat Earth" - by a Brazilian international pilot, I might add - that you should check out. I will say there are shenanigans involved with how flight paths are plotted out, and things like the jetstreams can be used to modify "normal" travel times as the winds on a flat earth model form concentric bands around the center and can be used to rapidly expedite air travel.

I should probably have explained the video a bit when I posted it; it's going to be a bit tough without pictures. The video talked about the subjective nature of viewing the sun, not the moon, but the principle can apply. The individuals north and south of the equator each have a personal lens/bubble/dome formed by the atmosphere that modifies the objective reality and presents each of them with a subjective, warped one. The video demonstrated how this works for perception of the sun and how the perceived position is therefore not the actual position. I think from looking at the video that this would result in an inversion of the sun as well, but since the sun is very bright and features cannot be observed with the naked eye, unlike the moon, the effect hasn't been mentioned by anyone. Working hypothesis.

I'm going to try to reproduce this in a way that illustrates the inversion effect. I might try to do it with software like what jeran used, but I'm planning to do some shopping tomorrow after work for some supplies to perform a physical experiment if I can. Not going to make promises about a timetable, but if I have good results I may make a video about it and link it here.

I'm delighted with your reply. Christian brothers can discuss interesting subjects with differing conclusions with not just peace, but with joy.

As you might assume, I know a fair amount about the FE model, and there's been many close to me who dove deep into it. I'm going to assume you know well there's a (if you'll please excuse me for using the word) gnostic element of FE into christianity (using gnostic as secret knowledge and an additive to the gospel), which is basically that Satan concocted the Earth sphere concept (and current universe construct) as a way to make humans feel insignificant, and that line of thinking. Besides Satan being a deceiver, I don't find the notion of this deception biblical, nor a spherical earth unbiblical. I'm still open to new evidence on FE and a ton of other things, but generally speaking I've personally found the vast amount of current available evidence/observation points rather conclusively to a spherical earth that revolves around the Sun.

On many things we go with our current certainty... and though there are some very intriguing observations and concepts, after doing the homework I don't think FE would be your current certainty unless you wanted it to be.

There's a danger with gnosticism regarding elements of FE. The point I'm trying to make is I want to edify you to not make FE a faith where you are not following Occam's Razor... that is where you may find yourself OVER searching and being much TOO emotionally accepting of nebulous answers (like an unspecific concept of light refraction) to explain away solid observations/evidence. The truth for a christian is important.

I encourage you quickly come to a conclusion on this issue, because lingering invites gnostic dangers to yourself and others who listen to you. I have no doubt both of us want to encourage others not to blindly accept what they are told and find out things for themselves. With limited time, we're forced to be selective about this. I don't find the Satanic-sphere deception credible, and without that I don't know that assuming earth is flat is worthwhile. If knowing whether earth is spherical is important to you, I encourage you to get that certainty and move on.

Here's a link to a vid that is fairly succinct with 10 reasons why FE should not be one's certainty. I'm sorry that the presenter is so insulting to FE believers, I guess he was jolted by the unkindness he initially received from previously addressing of subject. Just have to ignore the insults. 10 Challenges For Flat Earthers - YouTube

 

[JStates]

I'm delighted with your reply. Christian brothers can discuss interesting subjects with differing conclusions with not just peace, but with joy.

As you might assume, I know a fair amount about the FE model, and there's been many close to me who dove deep into it. I'm going to assume you know well there's a (if you'll please excuse me for using the word) gnostic element of FE into christianity (using gnostic as secret knowledge and an additive to the gospel), which is basically that Satan concocted the Earth sphere concept (and current universe construct) as a way to make humans feel insignificant, and that line of thinking. Besides Satan being a deceiver, I don't find the notion of this deception biblical, nor a spherical earth unbiblical. I'm still open to new evidence on FE and a ton of other things, but generally speaking I've personally found the vast amount of current available evidence/observation points rather conclusively to a spherical earth that revolves around the Sun.

On many things we go with our current certainty... and though there are some very intriguing observations and concepts, after doing the homework I don't think FE would be your current certainty unless you wanted it to be.

There's a danger with gnosticism regarding elements of FE. The point I'm trying to make is I want to edify you to not make FE a faith where you are not following Occam's Razor... that is where you may find yourself OVER searching and being much TOO emotionally accepting of nebulous answers (like an unspecific concept of light refraction) to explain away solid observations/evidence. The truth for a christian is important.

I encourage you quickly come to a conclusion on this issue, because lingering invites gnostic dangers to yourself and others who listen to you. I have no doubt both of us want to encourage others not to blindly accept what they are told and find out things for themselves. With limited time, we're forced to be selective about this. I don't find the Satanic-sphere deception credible, and without that I don't know that assuming earth is flat is worthwhile. If knowing whether earth is spherical is important to you, I encourage you to get that certainty and move on.

Here's a link to a vid that is fairly succinct with 10 reasons why FE should not be one's certainty. I'm sorry that the presenter is so insulting to FE believers, I guess he was jolted by the unkindness he initially received from previously addressing of subject. Just have to ignore the insults. 10 Challenges For Flat Earthers - YouTube

Let me just say that your approach and humility are refreshing and it's a pleasure to discuss these things with you. I do think courtesy and civility never go out of style, even when people disagree with each other, and I think we can each agree that the other has some good reasons for their perspective even if that perspective should in the end be completely incorrect or seriously flawed.

I mentioned in another post that my view is that the deception is (to me) certain but this does not mean that I have completely satisfactory explanations for all the things we observe in the world.

And there MAY BE middle ground reasons for the deception that don't necessarily negate a heliocentric view. For example, before I became a full flat earther, I held to a "Project Avalanche" view. I don't know if you have seen the movie. It's great except for strong language. The premise of the movie is that during the Apollo 11 missions there was a problem with the Eagle lander, so while the astronauts actually FLEW to the Moon, they NEVER landed on it and during the Eagle landing segment, they fed training data back to NASA command as if it were happening in real time. It's an interesting possibility, especially since the was NEVER a successful Eagle lander test flight ever. On one occasion, Neil Armstrong ejected just before the test lander exploded in a spectacular fireball.

Anyways, I will watch your challenge video and seriously consider it. I'll try to respond if I'm able, but will freely admit in advance that I likely won't have all the answers!

 

[JStates]

I'm delighted with your reply. Christian brothers can discuss interesting subjects with differing conclusions with not just peace, but with joy.

As you might assume, I know a fair amount about the FE model, and there's been many close to me who dove deep into it. I'm going to assume you know well there's a (if you'll please excuse me for using the word) gnostic element of FE into christianity (using gnostic as secret knowledge and an additive to the gospel), which is basically that Satan concocted the Earth sphere concept (and current universe construct) as a way to make humans feel insignificant, and that line of thinking. Besides Satan being a deceiver, I don't find the notion of this deception biblical, nor a spherical earth unbiblical. I'm still open to new evidence on FE and a ton of other things, but generally speaking I've personally found the vast amount of current available evidence/observation points rather conclusively to a spherical earth that revolves around the Sun.

On many things we go with our current certainty... and though there are some very intriguing observations and concepts, after doing the homework I don't think FE would be your current certainty unless you wanted it to be.

There's a danger with gnosticism regarding elements of FE. The point I'm trying to make is I want to edify you to not make FE a faith where you are not following Occam's Razor... that is where you may find yourself OVER searching and being much TOO emotionally accepting of nebulous answers (like an unspecific concept of light refraction) to explain away solid observations/evidence. The truth for a christian is important.

I encourage you quickly come to a conclusion on this issue, because lingering invites gnostic dangers to yourself and others who listen to you. I have no doubt both of us want to encourage others not to blindly accept what they are told and find out things for themselves. With limited time, we're forced to be selective about this. I don't find the Satanic-sphere deception credible, and without that I don't know that assuming earth is flat is worthwhile. If knowing whether earth is spherical is important to you, I encourage you to get that certainty and move on.

Here's a link to a vid that is fairly succinct with 10 reasons why FE should not be one's certainty. I'm sorry that the presenter is so insulting to FE believers, I guess he was jolted by the unkindness he initially received from previously addressing of subject. Just have to ignore the insults. 10 Challenges For Flat Earthers - YouTube

So I have seen Professor Dave before and this video seems familiar. I watched it completely and here are my answers to his challenges:

1. Challenge 1: Show a scale that works on an AE map. This is an impossible challenge. Firstly, let me point out that in the northern hemisphere, the globe and the AE map do differ, but the differences are not as pronounced as the variance between the HUGE southern hemisphere of the AE map and the southern hemisphere of the globe which is the same size as the northern. Dave cunningly says you can "make a scale, then test it in your car." Sure. Easily, on a local level WITHIN a continent. But you cannot test a scale (realistically) in a vehicle over great distances if you are a poor normal human being, and the GPS system is gatekept by the establishment, so you cannot use any kind of digital technology to verify, prove, or disprove anything here.

2. Challenge 2: Explain the amounts of night and day. This has actually been done. The problem here is that flat earth is not cohesive and different flat earthers each have their areas of exploration and expertise. Also, we are trying to build an entire system of thinking with extremely limited resources and have been doing this less than a decade. So there's that. But look up something called "coffee cup caustics." This stuff is fascinating. In a reflective (say, stainless steel) coffee cup, a single point light source can be caught by the reflective perimeter and "wrapped" around the entire periphery while leaving only a spot of darkness in the middle. The motion of the Sun inwards and outwards between the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer, as well as consideration of a coffee cup caustic effect from a firmament dome, can explain seasons and extended periods of light or darkness perfectly, even around the entire Antarctic periphery all at once while still leaving darkness in the middle. You should look up pictures of "sun dogs" as well if you have not seen this phenomenon before.

3. Challenge 3: Make any prediction whatsoever. Dave is missing something big here. A lot of things work literally exactly the same on a flat earth as on a globe. Compass navigation. Star positions. I mentioned in another post that planetariums and astronomical software essentially use a flat earth presentation system. Ironically, Dave mentions eclipses as proof of heliocentricity. He shows an image of an eclipse shadow path that actually is a big problem for the globe model. How can a gigantic moon cast a shadow on the earth that is only dozens of miles across? Also, eclipses are not predicted using the heliocentric model at all. Their cyclical nature has been recorded for millennia and encapsulated in a system called the Saros cycle. Completely independently of the shape of the earth, it simply predicts the timing of eclipses. NASA has a resident Saros cycle expert who handles their eclipse predictions. A flat earther could use the Saros cycle to predict an eclipse as well... and the shadow path size actually makes sense for a small, local moon. Here's another thought to chew on: the heliocentric model PREDICTS that the sun and moon should never be visible in the sky at the same time during a lunar eclipse. After all, if both are in the sky... what's casting a shadow on the moon? This happens all the time, though. It's called a selenelion. Conveniently, magic refraction bends light so we see what we see, according to the globers.

 

[JStates]

4. Challenge #4: Pull something into focus over land from over 1000 miles away. Dave doesn't like the videos that debunk curvature by showing we can see too far over water. So he arbitrarily picks a distance - 1000 miles - and arbitrarily sets conditions - over land - and says to get a straight line of view under those circumstances. First off, the distance is incredibly far. I'm not a photographer, I don't know what a camera is capable of, but I know that the Nikon P900 with its 80x digital zoom made curvature debunks possible for ordinary people when it came out. But the idea that one can see infinitely... is a glober misconception, not a flat earther idea. Flat earthers acknowledge that view distance has limitations because the atmosphere has weight, water vapor, dust, etc. limiting range of view. PLUS looking at something 1000 miles away over land is complicated because there are mountains and stuff in the way, whereas over water there are no obstructions. Dave is just being ridiculous with his demands here. Despite that... I've seen some incredible curvature debunks over land as well by flat earthers. Typically they start on a mountain of known height and see if they can view a distant peak of known height, which allows them to apply the curvature formula. I don't know that the 1000 mile range has been achieved or if it ever will be. It's just too big of an ask... and that's why Dave asked it.

5. 6. These challenges relate to ships over the visible horizon (which is not the curve of the Earth) and sunsets. These have been discussed ad nauseum by many flat earthers, which makes me wonder if Dave is only working from the material of the Flat Earth Society... which is actually controlled opposition and which we serious flat earthers avoid. I'll simply link you to the best hub of serious flat earth material - The Flat Earth Podcast - and you can find dozens of videos on these topics from there.

https://www.theflatearthpodcast.com/must-see-videos/

7. Challenge #7: Explain anything about a lunar eclipse. So, the consensus view on lunar eclipses is that the Earth's shadow is being case on the moon. Selenelions are a big problem for the heliocentrists. The size of the moon's shadow during a solar eclipse is a big problem for the heliocentrists. I'm surprised Dave has the guts to bring up eclipses, honestly. Flat Earthers cannot explain them... but neither can the heliocentrists. Oh, and Dave lies with his diagram of how an eclipse works, which makes me wonder if he is an Establishment con man. Modern scientism says that sunlight reaches the earth in parallel rays. This is a requirement for Eratosthenes' work - much touted by the scientific establishment - to even be remotely useful to heliocentrism. Eratosthenes is bunk, by the way. I have a whole video about it on YouTube, called "Eratosthenes Is Bunk." I probably don't explain it as well as other flat earthers, but here it is:

8. Challenge #8: Send a camera up on a balloon to take a photo of the sun and moon. Well, Dave, this has actually been done, and flat earthers show these videos all the time. The flat horizon rises to eye level and the sun's local hot spot over the earth can be clearly seen. There are several videos just like this on the flat earth podcast site I linked above. Counter challenge: Give us JUST ONE legit photo of the globe. The official story is that the Hubble couldn't take pictures of Earth or the moon because "it wasn't designed to do so." The official story is that this new next-gen space telescope, the one launched a few days ago on Christmas Day, won't be able to take pictures of the globe Earth because there are "sensitive electronics on the back that can never face the Sun or they will be damaged, so the telescope will only take pictures of deep space like Hubble." Oh, and then the pictures of "deep space" that we get back are all CG BS. If the globe is real, WE SHOULD HAVE THOUSANDS OF HIGH DEFINITION PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ENTIRE THING. THOUSANDS. I have HD scans of 9-foot maps that are hundreds of GB in size which can be zoomed in so that miniscule handwriting can be scrutinized, but NASA with tens of millions of $$$ in funding every day can't give us a comparable quality photo of the Earth?!

9. Challenge #9: Please see free book "16 Emergency Landings Proving Flat Earth" by international Brazilian pilot.

10. Challenge #10: Do anything scientific, ever. Basically Dave just gets snarky here, ignoring the hundreds if not thousands of curvature debunk videos where people went to mountaintops or shores to record direct lines of sight to spots too far to be seen on a globe. Flat earthers have done far more science than Dave will ever do.

 

[Gideon300]

Well, I do need to sleep, eat, and go to work. I'm also getting a bit muddled since I'm in several flat earth threads right now; I'm losing track of where I have posted stuff. I posted a pretty satisfactory answer about gravity somewhere but there are some additional thoughts I'd like to throw out there, so here goes:

First off, one flat earther recently put things really well. He said that we can conclusively prove that the Establishment is lying to us about the globe, but that does not mean that the flat earth community can explain every natural phenomenon with 100% certainty. Seeing the lie and knowing all the secrets of the universe are two different things. Additionally, the recent flat earth resurgence has only been around since 2012-2014, so obviously the glober establishment has a really big head start and are quite entrenched. I agree with him on all this 100%.

Newton did not discover gravity; he only came up with an explanation of it: mass attracting mass in the view of modern scientism. It's a theory that has never been proven. Now let's be clear. Things fall. No one, not even flat earthers, disagrees with that. I think flat earthers do themselves a disservice by saying things like, "Gravity doesn't exist" and then not thoroughly explaining what they mean. What they mean is that the explanation of mass attracting mass is inadequate. So let's talk about gravity's acceleration of ~9.8 m/s^2. That's an observational fact. I'm not denying that. But is it mass attracting mass that is CAUSING that? Unknown. We can use the observational FACT of 9.8 m/s^2 to make predictions without signing off on the concept of mass attracting mass.

But let's say - for the sake of argument - that gravity works exactly like modern scientism tells us. "Gravity IS mass attracting mass." That's not a problem for a flat earth model at all. Why not? Because if the sun and moon are small and local, WHERE IS ALL THE MASS IN A FLAT EARTH MODEL? In the Earth, which means stuff is still going to fall down towards the Earth.

But - and think about this really carefully - the idea that gravity IS mass attracting mass is actually HUGELY PROBLEMATIC for the heliocentric model. In order for the heliocentric model to apply, gravity has to be SELECTIVELY APPLIED. The Sun only captures planets. The planets only capture moons. Why don't the moons have moons have moons have moons? We should see incredible complex stepped gravitational systems all the time. Why doesn't a planetary alignment, when all the planets line up and all that gravity is pulling things in one direction - why doesn't this RIP entire planets out of their orbits? Why don't we feel a shock here on Earth whenever Mars or Venus are nearby, pulling us in a different direction? Why, when the Moon is slingshotting around the Earth in the direction of the Sun, doesn't the Sun capture it and rip it away since all the momentum AND the Sun's gravity should be moving it towards the Sun and not the Earth?

This is called the "three body problem" in science. Gravity can be modeled perfectly between two objects, a planet and moon or a planet and sun, etc. But when you add a third body, each body is acting on the other TWO which will degrade any orbits involved. With an entire solar system of bodies acting on each other... the system would not sustain itself in an orderly fashion for even a year without degrading. You would never have an order cycle, not even once.

Gravity is way better understood than your comments imply. Because of the distances involved, gravitational effects are not significant, even when the planets are perfectly aligned as happened in 1982. If the moon is so small compared to the earth, how come we have tides? And the moon is moving away from the earth at about 40mm a year.

FE's misconceptions regarding the position and size of the sun, moon and planets make the whole argument pointless. Mars and Venus are never nearby. It takes about 7 months to get to Mars. How do we know? It's been done! Several times! If it was close, people would be living there right now!

 

[JStates]

Gravity is way better understood than your comments imply. Because of the distances involved, gravitational effects are not significant, even when the planets are perfectly aligned as happened in 1982. If the moon is so small compared to the earth, how come we have tides? And the moon is moving away from the earth at about 40mm a year.

FE's misconceptions regarding the position and size of the sun, moon and planets make the whole argument pointless. Mars and Venus are never nearby. It takes about 7 months to get to Mars. How do we know? It's been done! Several times! If it was close, people would be living there right now!

Part of the problem with the flat earth debate is that most "normies" don't know what we actually believe or realize that serious flat earthers have answered some of these questions over and over again.

This is the best serious flat earther starting point. Here's a video on tides. Tides are interesting because the consensus idea of them simply doesn't make sense. If the moon actually caused tidal bulges, it would be high enough that it would sweep over all the land on Earth twice a day. Instead, good observational science has actually demonstrated that the tides revolve around a pattern of points called "tidal nodes" on Earth's surface.

The Bible says that the moon agitates the sea somehow, so this definitely happens. But what modern scientism tells us has a lot of issues.

https://www.theflatearthpodcast.com/portfolio/tides-not-explained-on-flat-earth/

 

[Gideon300]

Part of the problem with the flat earth debate is that most "normies" don't know what we actually believe or realize that serious flat earthers have answered some of these questions over and over again.

This is the best serious flat earther starting point. Here's a video on tides. Tides are interesting because the consensus idea of them simply doesn't make sense. If the moon actually caused tidal bulges, it would be high enough that it would sweep over all the land on Earth twice a day. Instead, good observational science has actually demonstrated that the tides revolve around a pattern of points called "tidal nodes" on Earth's surface.

The Bible says that the moon agitates the sea somehow, so this definitely happens. But what modern scientism tells us has a lot of issues.

https://www.theflatearthpodcast.com/portfolio/tides-not-explained-on-flat-earth/

You are wasting your time. The earth is a globe. I've traveled most of it, either by air or sea. Fancy graphics and pseudo science won't convince me. Observational science has literally seen the globe. FE's answer? They are lying! Why? Because they are. Because they do not agree with FE. Give me a break.