How to prove that the Earth is flat, and not a sphere...

I will go with what the Word of God teaches:
Isaiah 40:22 in the Old Testament of the Bible says: It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in. So the earth was known to be round in Bible days.

I will go with what the Word of God teaches:
Isaiah 40:22 in the Old Testament of the Bible says: It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in. So the earth was known to be round in Bible days.

What about waves? With a flat earth why do we have waves?

The wind causes waves, an earthquake can cause waves and also a boat passing by. No one can prove the earth is spinning over a 1000 mi p/h nor has anyone experienced it. The belief that the sun is a million times bigger than earth and 93 million miles away is all part of sun worship.

NASA has indoctrinated the masses. It comes down to are you going to believe man or what God says about the earth? Heaven is His throne and earth is His footstool. No footstool spins or rolls. It is flat with a foundation. God asks: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth (that I spread out)?"

The Bible says "circle" not round. When you say "round" it is ambiguous. Do you mean globe round or circle round. There is a big difference. No one can tell from this posts whether you believe the earth is flat or a globe / sphere?

The people doing the laser test saying it proves the earth's curvature are paid liars

I just decided yesterday that the Earth is flat.
I read Job and God was talking, and God convinced me that when he speaks, it's the truth.
No denying it.

You mean the earth is your flat...didn't know you were English, btw.

I too recently became convince of that. BTW, that avatar of mine is my oil painting interpretation of a flat earth.

Oh Susanna, well don't you cry for me......


Neil Young thinks the earth is flat.....I think......



[video=youtube;ei2PVpSKkF4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei2PVpSKkF4[/video]

I'm still waiting for an adequate explanation of the sun rising from a point south of due east, as viewed from a point south of the Tropic of Capricorn. On a spherical earth this is quite possible. On a flat earth, it is not possible.

A related question: if NASA is behind this alleged conspiracy, what is their agenda?

Lol, that's simple.
Money.

This will appear rude to some, but then truth is often rude to people who are not interested in it.

A film called "A beautiful Mind" about a mathematician who through his adult life say three people
who he interacted with but were created by his brain but to him appeared real. He related how he
knew they were not real is because they never aged.

It bring the reality everything we see and know is a construction of the mind, based on input from
the real world mixed with massive processing by our brains. So it is little wonder certain convictions,
like the flat earth, will grab some people, and no matter the evidence they are happy.

The hope is they can realise whatever we think about the world, it will always be different compared
to our understanding, but what matters is we admit this limitation and we go with the best alternative.

Often you will find your opponents provide you with the best evidence why you are right, so debate
is always productive, and when you find yourself to be wrong, you can adapt and change.

Could we be wrong about God? Yes. So investigate and progress and see what comes out. Worst case
you will find out what the truth is, and change your life, which may reinforce your faith or lead you into
something else, but it is far better than where you are at the moment.

By the way the earth is 100% round, and those who think otherwise have serious personality issues.
Only a nutcase, literally, would hold another position. It is similar to saying gravity does not exist.

The problem with your statement here is that you can't prove it.
You have to take the word of another human being.
Whereas God's word says otherwise.
If we can believe Isaiah 53, that it talks about Jesus, then we should be able to believe Job, when God speaks and explains a flat earth.
I guess by your reasoning, once science can prove Isaiah 53 wrong, then many more Christians will no longer believe the Word of God, just like you.

i find facts pretty interesting.

the following, for example, is fascinating:

same information as shown in the images above, presented in an un-narrated video.

the video shows a map of actual daylight/darkness zones on the earth, on an azimuthal projection map for the whole of 2016.

** the position of the moon at zenith for each day is also shown in this animation, without phase indicated: that's not the 'path' of the moon represented. **

[video=youtube;7WNTI05Ok9s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WNTI05Ok9s[/video]

cool huh?

it should be obvious that reality is perfectly explained in light of the earth being a globe - see images in previous post - but anyone got an explanation for reality if the earth is a disc? all we've ever heard from the flat-earth disciples contradicts and/or ignores either reality, physical law, or both.

Who made the pretty pictures?
Anyone you know?

It is also interesting what people sometimes call 'facts'. But, what is most interesting of all is how much people are willing to believe something is a fact just because someone else says it is a fact.

What I question most about your illustration is the phrase 'REAL-WORLD DAYLIGHT MAP'.

How do we know-that-we-know-that-we-know - that we absolutely know -- that the data behind this illustration is actually valid?

If NASA - or the science community at large - or whoever - tells me that the sun comes up at such-a-time at such-a-place on such-a-date, how do I know this to be true unless I can actually verify it myself or by a group of people I know well enough to trust?

At this point, I "pretty-much" do not trust ANYTHING that "modern science" tells me - unless I can prove it to myself based only on 'facts' which I have already proved to myself -- without the dependence of assumption of ANYTHING that "modern science" has told me that I have not yet proven.

Now - that is the true scientific method, is it not?

Herein lies the real issue. Flat-Earth folks are essentially telling NASA et al -- "we know you are lying to us, and - if you want to prove something to us, then show us some data we can prove to ourselves without taking your word for it" ( and, this means ALL of the data - from the ground up... ) -- and, from a Christian perspective, "God hath said" has considerably more 'weight' than that of flawed led-by-Satan man-made organizations.

The point is -- I have come to the realization that I can no longer trust the "modern science community" to exercise the "scientific method" for me -- especially, knowing that Satan is running it... ( like everything else on this Earth )


It is totally and completely ridiculous for Flat-Earth folks to use Globe-Earth data to prove Flat-Earth.

Now - to use Globe-Earth data to prove that the Earth cannot be a globe -- that is something different.

While data can very easily be converted between different map 'projections', that does not mean that the data being converted is actually valid.


actual??????

How do I know that?

I personally have never believed that what this video presents makes any sense in terms of the 'circuit' paths of a Flat-Earth sun and moon. I would think that - in a Flat-Earth model, the "reach" of the light of the sun would always 'present' as a circle with a certain radius in all directions from the sun - notwithstanding, the height of the sun would change the radius ( and other possible factors ).

What I find difficult to believe is that we are being given correct data to work with - to begin with...


But it is not...

Not really.

People start waking up when they realize that they have been indoctrinated - in the "facts" - and, in the 'method' of discerning those "facts" - and, in the "philosophy" behind the 'method' of discerning those "facts" -- all by the same 'entity' --- folks - just think about that for a while and let it sink in...

Folks --- if you will let God have the "philosophy" part -- He will teach you the proper 'method' - and, you will be able to more correctly discern the [ true ] facts.

People start actually thinking critically after they realize that our world system specifically teaches and encourages them to not think critically.

While calling it "critical thinking", no less...

Nowhere on Earth is there a better example of a 'faith'-based system that says "you just believe what I tell you [ and shut up ]" than our system of modern [ "so-called" ] science.

Want to prove something to me? Fine. Do it without it having ANY dependence on our world system 'credentials'. Stick strictly to what we can actually prove to ourselves without basing it on things we assume because we are [ simply ] told that they are true.

I have more physics "education" than the average person. And, if I want to, I can talk 'Globe' as well as the rest of 'em - including posthuman.

This is because I understand what I have been taught.

However, this fact alone does not mean that it is all true.

Modern science does not provide all of the information. And, 'logic' is not the only form of 'reasoning' that is available to us.

You have to utilize more than what you have been given by the world system.

Think about it...

Modern science will tell you that the gravitational "pull" of the moon will affect tides - not waves. There is a difference between the two. Waves are always present while the tides move 'in' and 'out'.

If you assume outright that tides occur because of the gravitational "pull" of the moon ( the conclusion of modern science ) -- and then, you go gather the data that modern science has provided -- and, you look at all of the tide cycle patterns everywhere on Earth compared to the position and path of the moon at every precise moment in the tide cycles ----- what will you discover and determine?

Do the patterns match the position and path of the moon?

If they do not match, what does that tell you?

It tells you that modern science is claiming something false.

If they do match, what does that tell you?

It tells you that modern science has built a theory that matches the observation.

And, if so -- does this automatically mean that the theory is true?

No - it does not.

Yet - this has become the 'core' of modern science -- a collection of theories that are specifically designed to match observation -- while not necessarily having any actual resemblance to the true nature of reality.

( Now - just keep that in mind... )



Does the "pull" of the moon affect the Great Lakes? the Dead Sea? other large bodies of water?

How about smaller bodies of water? How about that favorite lake you like to fish on?

How about the water in that cup you are holding at the picnic out by the lake?


We have all heard that "they say" the "pull" of the moon will [ even ] affect the water in our body / brain.

Really?

( Just think for a moment about the different amounts of water in the bodies of humans, animals, plants -- and other things and places where water is concentrated. How should the gravitational "pull" of the moon affect each of them, according to the amount of water and the particular nature of the manner in which it is 'concentrated'? )


Should 'gravity' have a greater "pull" on a larger amount of water or a smaller amount of water?


Modern science will tell you that the gravitational pull of everything is the same on everything else. ( i.e. - the gravitational pull of a bowling ball on everything else around it will be the same - modified by inverse-of-the-square-of-the-distance, etc. )


Why does the "pull" of the moon [ really ] only [ actually ] affect the oceans?


Why is it that -- while standing on the beach of an ocean watching the tide go 'in' and 'out' -- while also watching the water in a glass on a table on that beach remain perfectly still in the glass --- why is it that a force so enormous - enough to 'overcome' the gravitational "pull" of the Earth directly below the ocean from so great a distance out in space - that can move many Gazillions of gallons of water in the ocean - and "hold it up" ( "ocean tide swell", for lack of a better term ) continually ( Do you really understand just how much force would be required to do this? ) --- why is it that it has no effect on the water in the glass? or, the clouds that are between the moon and the ocean? or, the water droplets that are falling from those clouds?

You mean to tell me that the gravitational "pull" of the moon can "hold up" many Gazillions of gallons of water in an ocean while having no effect whatsoever on a raindrop that is falling from a cloud - that is between the moon and the ocean - down to that ocean surface...??????????

"You are kidding --- right???"


( Think in terms of a Gazillions-of-gallons-of-water 'drop' versus a single rain 'drop'. The supposed effect of the "pull" of the moon is that it is able to "lift up and hold up" - [ the weight of ] that G-drop - several feet - as / in a continual action... But, has no effect whatsoever on a single rain drop??? Are you with me so far? Now - just think about that for a while... )


Why doesn't the "pull" of the moon affect the water content of the atmosphere between it and the Earth?

You mean to tell me that the gravitational "pull" of the moon can "hold up" many Gazillions of gallons of water in an ocean while having no effect whatsoever on water vapor in the atmosphere...??????????

"You are kidding --- right???"


Any water vapor - in the atmosphere or anywhere else - that is not specifically being driven downward by the wind - should be rising upwards continually ( even slowly ) - right?

If we place water vapor in a bell jar - completely isolated - no wind currents at all - with the moon directly overhead -- will the water vapor rise upward until it reaches the 'hard' physical limit of the glass at the top of the bell jar?

Don't give me any crap about air pressure, blah blah blah, etc. ----- if the "pull" of the moon can "break" all of those physical laws out in the open ( where so many more / other physical laws come into play ) with the exceedingly-more-heavy oceans - then - it would absolutely have no problem whatsoever "sucking" the water vapor in the bell jar to the top of the bell jar.

The "fluid dynamics" of the liquid water in the oceans would be a much greater "foe" for the "pull" of the moon to overcome than would be the "fluid dynamics" of the water vapor in the bell jar.


These are the kinds of things you need to think about. Expand your awareness to the "bigger picture" of things.


And -- if you study this "opinion" of modern science carefully enough - utilizing the actual 'physics' that is behind the claim -- I believe that you will discover that the gravitational "pull" of the moon ( or the Earth or anything else ) will be much greater on water vapor than it will be on many Gazillions of gallons of water.

In other words, there would be a much greater 'resistance' to the "pull" of the moon from the localized physical properties of a larger amount of water than of a smaller amount of water.


Why does the "pull" of the moon affect the huge amounts of water so massively while having no effect whatsoever on the smaller amounts of water?

Here is another question to consider:

Does the "pull" of the moon affect anything other than water?

If not, then -- why not?

If it does, then -- what effects would there be from it?

( other liquids... gases... ? )