Flat earth debunked.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have seen many stupid comments on this subject. Yours is not the most fatuous, but it's close to the top of the list. The problem is that everything that FE people say about FE is ridiculous. It's hard to rate them in order of idiocy.
Do you know the range of radars? Obviously you do not. It's a complex subject. If you are honest and want to know the truth, the information is available. I've yet to talk to a FE who qualifies.
https://www.boatus.com/expert-advice/expert-advice-archive/2011/april/boat-radar-navigation
Do you know the range of radars? Obviously you do not. It's a complex subject. If you are honest and want to know the truth, the information is available. I've yet to talk to a FE who qualifies.
https://www.boatus.com/expert-advice/expert-advice-archive/2011/april/boat-radar-navigation
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Please educate us.
What are the range of radars? And while you are at it-- what is the range of lasers? Given that they don't bend, and you insist that the surface of the earth (and water level too, right?) What is the maximum distance that a straight LOS could acquire a fixed target?
Please use the curvature calculator to do your math. (account for earth curvature to determine maximum line of sight range)
What are the range of radars? And while you are at it-- what is the range of lasers? Given that they don't bend, and you insist that the surface of the earth (and water level too, right?) What is the maximum distance that a straight LOS could acquire a fixed target?
Please use the curvature calculator to do your math. (account for earth curvature to determine maximum line of sight range)
-
1
- Show all
Check out the link. Like I said, it's complicated. I note that no one seems to account for the fact that ships sit well above the water line. The LOS depends on the size of the target, the materials of construction, the frequency, prf and power of the radar. If you bothered to look at the link, there is a table of typical detection ranges.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I'll address your laser question now. As I said already (it would be nice if you read my post), I'm not an expert on lasers. However, visible light is simply a higher frequency on the electromagnetic spectrum. It is also line of sight. Range depends on the power of the laser. For example, the SAAB military laser has a range of 40 km. However, it also for anti aircraft applications, not ground targets.
Laser range can also take advantage of the refraction of light through air. You can see the effect of refraction by putting a stick in water. It appears to bend. Light similarly refracts in air. A mirage is when the light bends upwards, which occurs in some atmospheric conditions. It is possible to measure something 25 km away by this method.
Laser range can also take advantage of the refraction of light through air. You can see the effect of refraction by putting a stick in water. It appears to bend. Light similarly refracts in air. A mirage is when the light bends upwards, which occurs in some atmospheric conditions. It is possible to measure something 25 km away by this method.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Proof is pointless. FE people are so blinded that they could go into space, see the globe earth and still disbelieve. Since the vast majority of people know that the earth is a globe, I reckon that the onus is on FE people to prove that the earth is flat. They don't, because they cannot.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I'll take a wild guess and estimate that you aren't active duty. Even so, you should know enough to know that you don't know much about laser range. My Navy kid has handhelds with LOS range exceeding 25 km.
Spend any time at White Sands? It's 3200 square miles of pretty flat land and they use every inch of it for testing.
Spend any time at White Sands? It's 3200 square miles of pretty flat land and they use every inch of it for testing.
-
1
- Show all
It's not complicated. It's simple geometry and trigonometry, which you seem to have no grasp of, by continually denying the numbers which have been presented, yet referring to websites and past experience instead of presenting your own numbers.
The only limiting factor is the shape of the Earth, which as you outlined for laser, is approximately 25km (for a 10m tall ship). Given that radar range easily exceeds this distance, this is proof that your assumption Earth is a ball is incorrect.
The only limiting factor is the shape of the Earth, which as you outlined for laser, is approximately 25km (for a 10m tall ship). Given that radar range easily exceeds this distance, this is proof that your assumption Earth is a ball is incorrect.
-
1
- Show all
Don't let flat earthers dance around the errors of their beliefs.
The Flat Earth?!?!
I will briefly give reasons why the Flat Earth doesn't work, even though it's been discussed at nauseam.
Flat Earth doesn't have a model with the sun, moon, planets, and etc. It's pretty hard to point out it's errors, if there isn't anything to test.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Genesis 1:14 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1&version=KJV
It's pretty hard to show seasons, when there isn't a model to show how the sun rotates. Someone mentioned this verse in the thread earlier, so I thought it would be good one to expose the Flat Earth on this one.
Planes
Stars
Flat Earth needs to create a model, explain away planes, and Stars before it's even in a position to be discussed. Not to mention, where is the edge of the earth?!?! Gonna need proof of this one. Maybe there will be a flat earth safari one day, to find that amazing ice wall, that circles the world. lol
The Flat Earth?!?!
I will briefly give reasons why the Flat Earth doesn't work, even though it's been discussed at nauseam.
Flat Earth doesn't have a model with the sun, moon, planets, and etc. It's pretty hard to point out it's errors, if there isn't anything to test.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Genesis 1:14 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1&version=KJV
It's pretty hard to show seasons, when there isn't a model to show how the sun rotates. Someone mentioned this verse in the thread earlier, so I thought it would be good one to expose the Flat Earth on this one.
Planes
Stars
Flat Earth needs to create a model, explain away planes, and Stars before it's even in a position to be discussed. Not to mention, where is the edge of the earth?!?! Gonna need proof of this one. Maybe there will be a flat earth safari one day, to find that amazing ice wall, that circles the world. lol
Correct. So a person, say 6' tall could never look out to sea, or across any flat surface and see an object 25 km (or more) away because the earth curves away and down more than 50 meters in that distance on the ball earth model. It's simple math, but to make it even easier to understand-- here is a curvature calculator-
https://earthcurvature.com
It's plane to see (pun intended) that an object 25 km away would have to be more than 50 m high in order to see even the top of it. In other words, you couldn't see any part of it if it was less than 50 m tall.
But..... of course you can. You can watch ships sail away over the horizon line and conclude that the earth is curved, including the surface of bodies of water. It's ridiculous. If you take a big-- and I don't care how big-- body of water and curve the edge of it down in any direction, the water of course runs out over that edge if it is ever lower than the water level. Every time. To see that ship that sailed over the horizon again, all you need is a better lens. With a set of binoculars, range finder, or the camera on your phone you can make things reappear that have 'sailed over the horizon' simply by zooming in on them. Magic! --no. The surface isn't curved.
And it's an easy test that anyone can do.
IF the surface was curved as they say it is, the calculator provides the distance that object would disappear entirely. There would be no possible way to see beyond that distance, or bring objects that have disappeared back into focus. Think of it like this>> If you were standing, against the wall of the Coliseum in Rome (or any arena) and your spouse started walking away from you along that wall-- he/she would eventually disappear around the curve, because it is a round structure. Once she disappeared around the arc of the building and went out of view-- Could you pull out your phone and make her reappear by zooming? No.... because your field of view (line of sight) won't bend. It won't curve around that corner. And so anything moving away from you remains out of view no matter how much you zoom in on it. But that isn't the case across bodies of water. To see beyond the distance where those objects should be out of sight-- all you need is a better lens.
https://earthcurvature.com
It's plane to see (pun intended) that an object 25 km away would have to be more than 50 m high in order to see even the top of it. In other words, you couldn't see any part of it if it was less than 50 m tall.
But..... of course you can. You can watch ships sail away over the horizon line and conclude that the earth is curved, including the surface of bodies of water. It's ridiculous. If you take a big-- and I don't care how big-- body of water and curve the edge of it down in any direction, the water of course runs out over that edge if it is ever lower than the water level. Every time. To see that ship that sailed over the horizon again, all you need is a better lens. With a set of binoculars, range finder, or the camera on your phone you can make things reappear that have 'sailed over the horizon' simply by zooming in on them. Magic! --no. The surface isn't curved.
And it's an easy test that anyone can do.
IF the surface was curved as they say it is, the calculator provides the distance that object would disappear entirely. There would be no possible way to see beyond that distance, or bring objects that have disappeared back into focus. Think of it like this>> If you were standing, against the wall of the Coliseum in Rome (or any arena) and your spouse started walking away from you along that wall-- he/she would eventually disappear around the curve, because it is a round structure. Once she disappeared around the arc of the building and went out of view-- Could you pull out your phone and make her reappear by zooming? No.... because your field of view (line of sight) won't bend. It won't curve around that corner. And so anything moving away from you remains out of view no matter how much you zoom in on it. But that isn't the case across bodies of water. To see beyond the distance where those objects should be out of sight-- all you need is a better lens.
I'll take a wild guess and estimate that you aren't active duty. Even so, you should know enough to know that you don't know much about laser range. My Navy kid has handhelds with LOS range exceeding 25 km.
Spend any time at White Sands? It's 3200 square miles of pretty flat land and they use every inch of it for testing.
Spend any time at White Sands? It's 3200 square miles of pretty flat land and they use every inch of it for testing.
You can't!
If you come toward it at an eye level of 6 ft above sea level, you will begin to see it at less than 4 miles. Try it, and you'll see that the earth is round.
You are simply displaying your complete inability to understand anything outside of your preconceived, ridiculous notions. I'll say it again, in a way that even you might be able comprehend: If the earth was flat, the only limit to radar detection range would be the available power.
Did you read the article that I posted about radar on ships? Obviously not. The longest range they quoted was 9 nautical miles. That's about 17 km. It assumes a radar mounted above sea level and a large vessel such as a cargo ship as the target.
Australia has a radar system that can see over the horizon, for thousands of kilometers. It works by bouncing signals off the ionosphere. If the earth was flat, there would be no need for it.
Did you read the article that I posted about radar on ships? Obviously not. The longest range they quoted was 9 nautical miles. That's about 17 km. It assumes a radar mounted above sea level and a large vessel such as a cargo ship as the target.
Australia has a radar system that can see over the horizon, for thousands of kilometers. It works by bouncing signals off the ionosphere. If the earth was flat, there would be no need for it.
-
1
- Show all
I'll take a wild guess and estimate that you aren't active duty. Even so, you should know enough to know that you don't know much about laser range. My Navy kid has handhelds with LOS range exceeding 25 km.
Spend any time at White Sands? It's 3200 square miles of pretty flat land and they use every inch of it for testing.
Spend any time at White Sands? It's 3200 square miles of pretty flat land and they use every inch of it for testing.
No FE can explain why the range of laser, radar or optics is limited. On a flat surface, such as the ocean, you should be able to detect objects thousands of miles away. With a decent telescope, you should be able to see the same. I spent 3-1/2 years on a warship, maintaining systems vital to the defence of the vessel. With modern anti-ship missiles, you have very little time to detect an attack. Ask the Royal Navy how they were caught out in the Falklands war. It's even more difficult now.
If the missiles were detectable at long range, you know, like if the earth was flat, they would be nowhere near as dangerous. Attackers use the curvature of the earth to minimise the time that defenders have to react.
I realise that I'm wasting time with you. You can believe what you like, fairies or flying pigs, makes no difference to me. I am more concerned about others being misled and so deceived.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I guessed right! What you call ionosphere, is what concave hollow earthers call, glass sky. Tomato/Tamata. I heard a story about radio signals being picked up in other countries in Europe, and that's why some people believed in the glass sky way back when. youtube stuff
Good luck changing a flat earther's mind! lol
Both you and @Billyd are conveniently ignoring the obvious. And it's so predictable. I presented a very simple PROOF that your supposed curvature doesn't exist and you both ignore it.... SQUIRREL! Look over here! I found another nut for you to try to crack!
So just stop. I've seen this movie.
First-- explain how those objects beyond the horizon can come back into view, simply by using a stronger magnification factor.
Then-- if you can explain that, then I'll be happy to explain how it's the atmosphere that affects (scatters) and limits laser range and why you can't point it at Bermuda a thousand miles away and see it.
But first things first. WHY can you see objects clearly WELL beyond your supposed horizon line?
Otherwise.... move along. Take your ball and go home.
So just stop. I've seen this movie.
First-- explain how those objects beyond the horizon can come back into view, simply by using a stronger magnification factor.
Then-- if you can explain that, then I'll be happy to explain how it's the atmosphere that affects (scatters) and limits laser range and why you can't point it at Bermuda a thousand miles away and see it.
But first things first. WHY can you see objects clearly WELL beyond your supposed horizon line?
Otherwise.... move along. Take your ball and go home.
-
1
- Show all
The ionosphere can re-radiate electromagnetic waves. This property is used by over the horizon radars. It has nothing to do with glass. It is possible to detect high frequency radio transmissions by the same ionospheric re-radiation. You need a decent HF receiver for reliable reception.
FE people? None so blind...................
FE people? None so blind...................
You really are obtuse. Your atmosphere is exactly why laser ranging can be over the horizon. It's the refraction of the beam passing through air. If you bothered to read what I said, you would realise that. You have no proof. I have explained comprehensively how the curvature of the earth affects radar performance. I explained how military forces use the curvature of the earth to overcome radar defences against missile attacks. Do you respond to that? No. Why? You cannot. Ball's in your court. Prove me wrong about radar. The navies of the world will be aghast. They will wonder why they've been spending pointless billions defending against something that is easily overcome.
I made it *really* simple. Not so much for you, because I think you are shilling for ball-Earth, rather than genuinely trying to understand. But for anyone honest that reads your posts and for whatever reason believes you might be right.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-range-of-an-average-marine-radar-on-US-Navy-ships?share=1
"Almost every one of the 50+ US Navy ships I sailed on had an installed “average marine radar” from a manufacturer like Raytheon or Furuno. These tend to be “fishing boat” radars with ranges of 25 to 75 nm, depending on how high above the sea surface they were installed."
Note that 25 nautical miles (the lower estimate given) is approximately 46km.
● Let A, B and E represent 3 ships, of height H1, H2, H3, on a ball-Earth of circumference C and radius r.
● Let ships A and B be located on the ball-Earth at such a distance that a straight line between the highest point on A and the highest point on B is tangent with ball-Earth. [This sets ship B at the maximum possible detectable distance, by straight line, from A].
● Let T represent the point where the tangent line AB intersects the ball-Earth.
● Let O represent the center of ball-Earth.
● Let ϴ1 represent the angle between OA and OT.
● Let ϴ2 represent the angle between OT and OB.
● Let ϴT represent the sum of the angles ϴ1 and ϴ2.
● Let D represent the distance of the arc along the circumference of ball-Earth, between the ships A and B.
Also, let:
● H1 = 10m
● H2 = 10m
● C = 40,075,017m
● r = 6,378,000m
Then:
● From basic trigonometry, we know that cos(ϴ) = Adjacent/Hypotenuse
cos (ϴ1) = r / (r + H1)
cos (ϴ1) = 0.999998432112838
cos (ϴ2) = r / (r + H2)
cos (ϴ2) = 0.999998432112838
ϴ1 = acos(0.999998432112838)
ϴ1 = 0.00177081200133473 radians
ϴ2 = acos(0.999998432112838)
ϴ2 = 0.00177081200133473 radians
● We also know that 360º = 2π radians
ϴ1 = 0.001770812 * 360 / (2.π)
ϴ1 = 0.101460053987595º
ϴ2 = 0.001770812 * 360 / (2.π)
ϴ2 = 0.101460053987595º
ϴT = ϴ1 + ϴ2
ϴT = 0.10146º + 0.10146º
ϴT = 0.20292º
● There are 360º in a circle.
D = ϴT / 360 * C
D = 0.20292º / 360º * 40,075,017m
D = 22588.951249m
D = 22.59km
● Therefore, if we lived on a ball-Earth of circumference C = 40,075km, the maximum range that a straight‑beam radar mounted 10m above sea-level could detect a 10m-high ship, is 22.59km.
● In reality, radar can detect ships at much greater distances than this (e.g. easily at 50km).
● The trigonometric diagram of ball-Earth, together with radar ranges which greatly exceed the maximum range predicted by the ball-Earth model, therefore demonstrate that we do not live on a ball‑Earth at all, as some would have us imagine.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-range-of-an-average-marine-radar-on-US-Navy-ships?share=1
"Almost every one of the 50+ US Navy ships I sailed on had an installed “average marine radar” from a manufacturer like Raytheon or Furuno. These tend to be “fishing boat” radars with ranges of 25 to 75 nm, depending on how high above the sea surface they were installed."
Note that 25 nautical miles (the lower estimate given) is approximately 46km.
● Let A, B and E represent 3 ships, of height H1, H2, H3, on a ball-Earth of circumference C and radius r.
● Let ships A and B be located on the ball-Earth at such a distance that a straight line between the highest point on A and the highest point on B is tangent with ball-Earth. [This sets ship B at the maximum possible detectable distance, by straight line, from A].
● Let T represent the point where the tangent line AB intersects the ball-Earth.
● Let O represent the center of ball-Earth.
● Let ϴ1 represent the angle between OA and OT.
● Let ϴ2 represent the angle between OT and OB.
● Let ϴT represent the sum of the angles ϴ1 and ϴ2.
● Let D represent the distance of the arc along the circumference of ball-Earth, between the ships A and B.
Also, let:
● H1 = 10m
● H2 = 10m
● C = 40,075,017m
● r = 6,378,000m
Then:
● From basic trigonometry, we know that cos(ϴ) = Adjacent/Hypotenuse
cos (ϴ1) = r / (r + H1)
cos (ϴ1) = 0.999998432112838
cos (ϴ2) = r / (r + H2)
cos (ϴ2) = 0.999998432112838
ϴ1 = acos(0.999998432112838)
ϴ1 = 0.00177081200133473 radians
ϴ2 = acos(0.999998432112838)
ϴ2 = 0.00177081200133473 radians
● We also know that 360º = 2π radians
ϴ1 = 0.001770812 * 360 / (2.π)
ϴ1 = 0.101460053987595º
ϴ2 = 0.001770812 * 360 / (2.π)
ϴ2 = 0.101460053987595º
ϴT = ϴ1 + ϴ2
ϴT = 0.10146º + 0.10146º
ϴT = 0.20292º
● There are 360º in a circle.
D = ϴT / 360 * C
D = 0.20292º / 360º * 40,075,017m
D = 22588.951249m
D = 22.59km
● Therefore, if we lived on a ball-Earth of circumference C = 40,075km, the maximum range that a straight‑beam radar mounted 10m above sea-level could detect a 10m-high ship, is 22.59km.
● In reality, radar can detect ships at much greater distances than this (e.g. easily at 50km).
● The trigonometric diagram of ball-Earth, together with radar ranges which greatly exceed the maximum range predicted by the ball-Earth model, therefore demonstrate that we do not live on a ball‑Earth at all, as some would have us imagine.
Hey.
Hey, I get it. You're upset.
It's like I called your wife fat. When someone is married to an idea, it just hurts when anyone is critical of that special someone -IDEA.
And that's what's going on here. I presented a simple proof, a simple experiment that you can try yourself with a good set of binoculars, telescope, zoom camera, or even a good laser pointer. But will you try the experiment yourself? You can lead a horse to water, but some horses just want to lay there on the beach in a comfortable state. Flat Earthers offer no comfort.
It's upsetting to realize that you've been lied to and taught nonsense, and passed that lying nonsense on to others generationally and unwittingly. There is no peace in that knowledge. --But I don't mind telling you that it was the water that brought life to me and it was there at the water's edge that my mind was opened when I confronted this FACT-- that we should not be able to see objects at a distance given the curvature of the earth. (if there was one).
But no one can help you if you won't look. If you want to see farther get a better lens. If you want that laser to hit a target that is farther away-- get a stronger laser. It's that simple. And it's provable. I'll say it again, since you seem to easily miss my main point repeatedly-- start there. Start by testing your thesis. What distance is the absolute maximum that you could see an object of similar height to your lens/laser/measuring stick. Make your line level, and tell me how far you should be able to see.
I won't engage you further if you won't engage your mind before your mouth. This is strictly a self-help program.
Finally, for you and anyone else-- at the end of the day, the question of flat, stationary earth versus round spinning ball hurling through space is 'at it's core' a theological debate. I believe scripture. Has anyone initiated a flat earth discussion from a biblical foundation?
Hey, I get it. You're upset.
It's like I called your wife fat. When someone is married to an idea, it just hurts when anyone is critical of that special someone -IDEA.
And that's what's going on here. I presented a simple proof, a simple experiment that you can try yourself with a good set of binoculars, telescope, zoom camera, or even a good laser pointer. But will you try the experiment yourself? You can lead a horse to water, but some horses just want to lay there on the beach in a comfortable state. Flat Earthers offer no comfort.
It's upsetting to realize that you've been lied to and taught nonsense, and passed that lying nonsense on to others generationally and unwittingly. There is no peace in that knowledge. --But I don't mind telling you that it was the water that brought life to me and it was there at the water's edge that my mind was opened when I confronted this FACT-- that we should not be able to see objects at a distance given the curvature of the earth. (if there was one).
But no one can help you if you won't look. If you want to see farther get a better lens. If you want that laser to hit a target that is farther away-- get a stronger laser. It's that simple. And it's provable. I'll say it again, since you seem to easily miss my main point repeatedly-- start there. Start by testing your thesis. What distance is the absolute maximum that you could see an object of similar height to your lens/laser/measuring stick. Make your line level, and tell me how far you should be able to see.
I won't engage you further if you won't engage your mind before your mouth. This is strictly a self-help program.
Finally, for you and anyone else-- at the end of the day, the question of flat, stationary earth versus round spinning ball hurling through space is 'at it's core' a theological debate. I believe scripture. Has anyone initiated a flat earth discussion from a biblical foundation?
-
1
-
1
- Show all