About Flat Earth..

[daryldeal]

1000th post!

 

[Scyther]

Here is scripture on works and Salvation. Fleshly, carnal works perish. Spirit-motivated works endure. We see in verse 15 that even for a man whose works perish, he himself will be saved.

1 Corinthians 3:14 and 15
"If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

That's still works. A person simply being kind won't be enough of course most importantly they need to have faith in god with all their might.

Several sunsets made for the beauty of the sunset, not to prove a theory:

So do you agree that the sun was getting smaller?

In the videos I posted of sunsets, those are very spherical suns. Again, there was no agenda in mind with those except for asthetic value.

Those suns weren't spherical, spherical means something is shaped like a sphere. We can only see a circle in the sky, no one can confirm the sun is a sphere especially a sun that's allegedly 93 million miles away.

Sorry, quite frankly I had time earlier in the week, but don't have much time now.

I found this whole clip (debunking flat earth theory) informative. I time-stamped one showing how a spherical moon would show curved shadows at various phases while a disc-shaped moon wouldn't. The whole video is worth watching. There is tons of space footage in this video.

The first mistake they make is to say the moon is a flat disk when many think that both the sun and moon are non-physical.

To add to that they assume the moon is a sphere with no proof whatsoever proving that it is actually a sphere. One cannot simply lay a foundation on an idea that's flawed and claim it proves something. They never even bothered proving there is a dark side of the moon to view. They show the moon rotating in the video but no one has ever seen the dark side of the moon so that alone disqualifies their debunking of the moon. They have to prove the moon even rotates before they bother getting into shadows.

Another thing that people miss about the moon phases is if the Earth is truly round then when the Earth and moon are on the other side of the sun the moons phases should be flipped. There are so many flaws with the moon alone that they just haven't covered.

Finally, sorry about the title, but this video is excellent too:



Here's the thing about this theory and any other quite frankly. You have to constantly read, study and watch from both perspectives to see which is weightier. I'm sure you know this, but I want to remind you.

As Proverbs 18:17 says, "17He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him."

First off, your proof based on an experiment that Eratosthenes did in 240 A.D. has no documentation that any scientist would consider valid. One cannot know if the experiment was conducted as stated or not. To add to that the outcome of these experiments can change based on your preconceived notions. Flat Earthers have covered Eratosthenes so-called proof long ago.

I time stamped the video.



I think if it hasn't already become clear that the Earth is flat. I admit I may be off on some of the biblical stuff because I am new to the subject and learn more and more about the bible everyday but as far as the flat Earth stuff goes I know the Earth is flat, all the evidence points to it.

 

[Arqueto]

So how old is the flat Earth then?

 

[Pugilistic]

1000th post!

Proof?

 

[Scyther]

Yes the angle of the sun does change, but not to a position that would satisfy this effect.
Think of it as a right triangle.

A is the location of the top of the mountain.
B is the location of the Sun
b is the distance of the position of the sun across the flat earth

As b increases the angle at ∠ABC get s smaller(as you said) but it never reaches zero or goes negative. So no matter how far the sun travels, the angle will never drop below the top of the mountain.

You can do the math yourself:
To solve for ∠ABC you use this formula: ∠ABC = sin-1(a/b)
("sin-" represent inverse sin, I use "ASIN()" in Excel)
For example:

Sun height ≈ 3000 miles.
Mt Rainier Height ≈ 2.7 miles
Distance from viewer to 1/4 orbit on Flat Earth Model ≈ 9000 miles

a = 2997.3 = 3000-2.7
b = 9000
∠ABC = 19.5 degrees = 0.34 radians = sin-1(2997.3/9000)

So at the theoretical time of sunset in Flat Earth Model, the sun would be at around 19.5 degrees above horizontal when observed from the top of the mountain.

In order to have a shadow on the underside of cloud cover, you would need to flip the triangle over. But since the Flat Earth Model considers the height of the sun to be a constant, the triangle could never flip over.

No ones arguing with you on the math aspect here no one needs any math equations to explain the obvious point you're trying to make about shadows. I found a website that could put it in words better then I can and these are globe Earthers. It took a bit of time to find a reputable source that discusses these things.

Upward shadow spikes are never seen on a mountain summit. You must be a little below the summit.

To understand spikes, imagine the mountain sliced into two. One mountain below you and another one above.

Most mountains have triangular shadows regardless of their profile. What you see is a perspective view along a shadow tube through the air and extending several miles. It is roughly parallel but from one end and near its edge it appears triangular.

The mountain below you produces an upward pointing triangular shadow.

The mountain above you makes another triangular shadow but pointing downwards. If you are on one side of the mountain relative to the sunlight then the shadow appears as a spike pointing in the opposite direction. The closer to the summit the smaller is the mountain above you and the smaller and fainter is its shadow.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz1005.htm

So according to even globe Earther's (unbeknownst to them) they're refuting your ball Earth proof. They even attribute the upward shadow one sees from a mountain to perspective and not to a ball Earth sun. From different vantage points one sees different things. I suggest actually visiting the page because they show a simple drawing of how it works.

If you've been to Seattle, you know that the cloud ceiling is often really low. You can't see mountains, you can't see sunsets, sometimes you can barely see the end of the street. When we first moved to Washington, it was in the winter and we didn't see Mt Rainier for the first month we lived there. It was constantly obscured by clouds.

Mt Rainier is 14,410 ft. For this effect you need a consistent cloud cover around 14,000 to maybe 25,000 feet.(I don't know the exact upper limit but I think this should be pretty close) If the clouds are too low the mountain is shrouded in clouds, and the sunset is blocked. If the clouds are too high the the shadow won't reach them, or will be too spread out to be noticeable. If the clouds are uneven like cumulus clouds, the shadow won't be well defined. Most importantly you need to have a break in the clouds to the east of the mountain. If there's no cloud break, no sunny skies to the east, there won't be any sunlight filtering through to cast the shadow.

To be honest I have no clue what the cloud ceiling is like in Seattle and I've lived here for over a decade and honestly I don't think you know either whether you live here or not I don't particularly think the cloud ceiling is low I think it's probably average but your word or my guess is hardly proof. Also, the cloud ceiling of the surrounding area of Mount Rainier is what needs to be known here. Until we can get some solid info on that one cannot say that there isn't a consistent cloud ceiling.

I don't recall name calling(it's possible I have, it is the internet), and I've tried to be thorough in my responses. I did call Flat Earth theory "bullshit", which I firmly believe it is. That's not a direct insult to you, I know a lot of good smart people who believe some things that are "bullshit".

I think you missed this post where I responded to the inquiry.

If you discuss something with someone and then instead of giving a legit response but call what they're saying bullshit is name-calling.

To add to that you did reply to my post of course but never even attempted to address my questions.

You go into no real detail whatsoever you just throw out jargon that sounds good but there no debunk in your post. Great you work a job that involves great distances. Have you ever had to calculate the curve?

Also, you didn't bother to go into any detail as to why the path the sun and moon travel "in the prevailing flat Earth models."

Like I've said multiple times, let me know what you want clarification on. I'm writing these responses for fun, in between breaks. So I don't include all the details and specifics up front. If there's anything you need clarification or elaboration on, I'm happy to indulge.

You can start by answering my question that I asked a while back. Have you ever had to calculate the curve of the Earth?

 

[Scyther]

So how old is the flat Earth then?

Around 6,000 years old.

 

[daryldeal]

Around 6,000 years old.

Scyther, not sure if u discussed the dinosaurs and flat earth connection yet?

 

[Arqueto]

Around 6,000 years old.

And you know this how?

 

[Scyther]

Scyther, not sure if u discussed the dinosaurs and flat earth connection yet?

I haven't in this thread but I have in the past. There are two opinions on dinosaurs. 1. They were a hoax. 2. They existed but went extinct during the flood. I personally think they never existed. Here's a video about dinosaurs being a hoax.

 

[Metal_Daze]

Can we give Scyther the crown for most successful troll ever and just be done with this thread?