Flat Earth

[BADecker]

For the simple reason that, anybody, as a simple person, living in his/her simple life, would see exactly the same thing on either a flat earth or a globe earth. God was writing for simple people... people who at the time had no scientific knowledge. If God had explained earth to them in the scientific way, they wouldn't have understood. Nowadays we have been able to explain globe earth to ourselves in ways that we understand.

The point is, you and I can go out and look at the sky and the ground, right now, and see the same thing that would be seen on either a flat earth or a globe earth. That is the thing that God describes for people... not the thing that they would see if they understood science, nor the thing that they would see if they were a hundred-thousand miles off into space.

Oh, I think we did more than that.  We have essentially invalided all of the science in the Bible.   - Actually, you have invalidated your own thinking.

- The universe was not created in 6 days - But you know that what you say is not necessarily true, even from your own stand point. You were not one of the people who received the word directly from God. And you weren't there. So, you don't know.
- Earth does not have a dome above it - But it appears to, and essentially does if you look at the earth and sky with your simple sight.
- Earth is not 6000 years old - Not exactly. But a little older, well under 7,000-y-o.
- Global flood 4000 years ago did not happen - Closer to 4,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm.
- Genetic variation is not due to a massive incest starting with Adam and Eve, - True. - it is a result of evolution over millions of years - False, because probability math shows that there was no evolution, and the idea of millions of years is intentional falsity by scientists.
- we have evolved from other primates, and we were not created from dirt by some spirit (I do not even know what that means) - Again, probability math shows that evolution is solidly impossible, and irreducible complexity proves it. The fact that you do not even know what something you wrote means, shows that you don't know what you are talking about, by your own admission.
- women were not created from the rib bone - The one woman that was made from a rib, was fashioned from it, not created from it.

We have explained how the universe was started, how galaxies, stars, solar system have (and are) forming.  We have found other planets in other solar systems.  We have started a project to ultimately send small nano spaceships to the closest star 4 light years away, we have detected gravitational waves, we have discovered and observed matter at the subatomic level, the list goes on... - When you look through the science fiction writer explanations of science over the last several hundred years, you will find all kinds of variation in explanations of the same things. Nothing has changed. Science law is fact. Science theory should be considered fiction until it is proven to be science law.

I think you are selectively cherry picking science like you are cherry picking your Bible. - Seems to me that you are the one who did the cherry picking in the Bible. You listed some Bible stuff. But you missed most of it.

I urge you to cherry pick science, eventually, you will understand that the Bible is a collection of Bronze Age nonsense. It is literary work.

If you categorize science law in one category, and science theory in another category, you will find that the science theory category is far larger. The theory category is the science fiction category, and most of the scientists know this.

At least the Bible is a collection of eye witness accounts. Often descriptions of things in the Bible defied the understandings of those who wrote them down. But they did their best to give us an accurate account of what they saw.

[dondexter]

I would like to advance the hypothesis that the earth is triangle. Working on proving this in the next 1 year.

[BADecker]

For the simple reason that, anybody, as a simple person, living in his/her simple life, would see exactly the same thing on either a flat earth or a globe earth. God was writing for simple people... people who at the time had no scientific knowledge. If God had explained earth to them in the scientific way, they wouldn't have understood. Nowadays we have been able to explain globe earth to ourselves in ways that we understand.

The point is, you and I can go out and look at the sky and the ground, right now, and see the same thing that would be seen on either a flat earth or a globe earth. That is the thing that God describes for people... not the thing that they would see if they understood science, nor the thing that they would see if they were a hundred-thousand miles off into space.

Oh, I think we did more than that.  We have essentially invalided all of the science in the Bible.   - Actually, you have invalidated your own thinking.

- The universe was not created in 6 days - But you know that what you say is not necessarily true, even from your own stand point. You were not one of the people who received the word directly from God. And you weren't there. So, you don't know.
- Earth does not have a dome above it - But it appears to, and essentially does if you look at the earth and sky with your simple sight.
- Earth is not 6000 years old - Not exactly. But a little older, well under 7,000-y-o.
- Global flood 4000 years ago did not happen - Closer to 4,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm.
- Genetic variation is not due to a massive incest starting with Adam and Eve, - True. - it is a result of evolution over millions of years - False, because probability math shows that there was no evolution, and the idea of millions of years is intentional falsity by scientists.
- we have evolved from other primates, and we were not created from dirt by some spirit (I do not even know what that means) - Again, probability math shows that evolution is solidly impossible, and irreducible complexity proves it. The fact that you do not even know what something you wrote means, shows that you don't know what you are talking about, by your own admission.
- women were not created from the rib bone - The one woman that was made from a rib, was fashioned from it, not created from it.

We have explained how the universe was started, how galaxies, stars, solar system have (and are) forming.  We have found other planets in other solar systems.  We have started a project to ultimately send small nano spaceships to the closest star 4 light years away, we have detected gravitational waves, we have discovered and observed matter at the subatomic level, the list goes on... - When you look through the science fiction writer explanations of science over the last several hundred years, you will find all kinds of variation in explanations of the same things. Nothing has changed. Science law is fact. Science theory should be considered fiction until it is proven to be science law.

I think you are selectively cherry picking science like you are cherry picking your Bible. - Seems to me that you are the one who did the cherry picking in the Bible. You listed some Bible stuff. But you missed most of it.

I urge you to cherry pick science, eventually, you will understand that the Bible is a collection of Bronze Age nonsense. It is literary work.

If you categorize science law in one category, and science theory in another category, you will find that the science theory category is far larger. The theory category is the science fiction category, and most of the scientists know this.

At least the Bible is a collection of eye witness accounts. Often descriptions of things in the Bible defied the understandings of those who wrote them down. But they did their best to give us an accurate account of what they saw.

You really believe Earth is less than 7000 years old?  and you are talking about science?  So dinosaurs did not exist?  Were fossil records faked?  Ice cores also faked?  Living trees with more rings than 9000 also fakes?
Pyramids were built after the flood, so Noah would have to fuck his wife, his daughters and granddaughters pretty much constantly, and he still would not be able to make enough people to build the pyramids.

You cannot be that stupid.  

Ask yourself. Where did you get all that knowledge that you have of the way things exist? Wasn't it from reading about it in books, online, or hearing about it in college? You didn't go out and do the work yourself, did you? Did you ever think that the people who told you all this knowledge you have, might have been mistaken? Maybe they were lying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaZxc7tam4A

I'm sorry, I think you need to have your head examined.  FE and 6000-7000 year old Earth are the same types of nonsense.  Both are described in Bible.

Since you are willing to believe the interpretations of scientists, many of whom do not agree with each other, and some of whom have shown that your stuff is a complete lie, I have a bridge to sell you... real cheap.

How you can read the Bible and believe any of it, beats me.  You know FE is not true, but yet you believe the biblical account of FE.  How is it possible?

Why do you think that the Bible has an account of FE? Such a thing isn't in the Bible. In fact, there are places where the Bible indicates that the earth is a globe.

You just skip the parts of Bible (word of God) that were proven to be completely flat out false and continue to believe the rest of the nonsense.

There aren't any parts like this... nowhere in the whole Bible.

Was God wrong about FE when he asked his scribes to describe FE model in the Bible?

Or maybe, just maybe the people who wrote about FE in the Bible were wrong?  Proving yet again that people wrote Bible based on their imagination (no god was involved).

Again, flat earth isn't in the Bible. It is you who seems to think that it is for some reason. Are you starting to adopt the flat earth beliefs?

[BADecker]

The Earth definitely is not flat.

Physics Explained: Here's Why the Speed of Light Is the Speed of Light

The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure scientists finally agreed on in 1975 – but why settle on that figure? And why does it matter?

Answering those questions takes us on an amazing journey through space, time, physics and measurement, and the tale hasn't quite been told yet. Modern-day studies are calling into question the speed of light for the first time in centuries.

To start at the start though, some history: at the beginning of the 17th century, the general consensus was that light didn't have a speed, that it just appeared instantaneously, either present or not.

During the 1600s this idea was seriously challenged. First, by Dutch scientist Isaac Beeckman in 1629, who set up a series of mirrors around a gunpowder explosions to see if observers noticed any difference in the when the flashes of light appeared.

Read more at http://www.sciencealert.com/why-is-the-speed-of-light-the-speed-of-light.

[BADecker]

...

Again, flat earth isn't in the Bible. It is you who seems to think that it is for some reason. Are you starting to adopt the flat earth beliefs?

Here you go.  Spinning, globe Earth is not found anywhere in the Bible.  Quite the opposite.

Shape:
------
Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the center of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”
Matthew 4:8 “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”
Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”


Immovable, fixed Earth:
-----------------------
Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

I didn't see the word "flat" in any of it. When you look at surrounding text in the passages you listed, you can see that the whole talk is figurative, and about something other than flat earth.

Why are you so deceptive? Why don't you simply accept the truth?

[TooQik]

...

Again, flat earth isn't in the Bible. It is you who seems to think that it is for some reason. Are you starting to adopt the flat earth beliefs?

Here you go.  Spinning, globe Earth is not found anywhere in the Bible.  Quite the opposite.

Shape:
------
Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the center of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”
Matthew 4:8 “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”
Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”


Immovable, fixed Earth:
-----------------------
Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

All very good points about the writings of the Bible and their slant on a flat Earth.

It's worth pointing out one of your quotes in particular:

    Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the center of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

For a tree to be standing at the center of the Earth and visible from all points on the Earth's surface can only mean that the Earth is a plane or very close to it.

Of course BADecker will argue against this but I think he is more conflicted than most on here with the contradictions he's facing between his Bible and his scientific opinions. The only thing I do agree with BADecker on is that the shape of the Earth is a sphere (yes, I can't believe I said it either  ).

[notbatman]

The Michaelson-Morley Experiment and Airy's Failure both failed to detect any motion of the Earth and both are peer reviewed. When taken with the peer reviewed Sagnac Experiment proving the existence of an aether you've got the peer reviewed scientific evidence the Earth is flat that you're looking for, that is of course unless you want argue in favor of a geocentric sphere HAHA HAHA. ...

Bonus:

Gleason's flat-earth map is patented.

We've done this dance notbatman.

Both the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments didn't prove the presence of an aether but ironically (for you) the Sagnac effect can be used to prove that the Earth is rotating.

Fuck off, both M&M and Airy's Failure (keyword here is failure), prove the Earth is motionless. As for Sagnac's interferometer measurements at 10% of the predicted velocity of Earth's rotation and with a sidereal cycle they most certainly do not prove the Earth is rotating but that there's an aether drift.

So yes, we've done this dance before and you're still on the losing side of the argument, faggot.

Your ability to draw conclusions from data is right up there with your ability to will over people using your eloquent terms of endearment for others who don't share your point of view.

First you state that Michelson-Morley's and Airy's experiments prove that the Earth is motionless, then you go on that Sagnac's experiment proves that there's an aether drift. Your failure here is that if there is an aether drift then the Earth is moving through this aether and your two statements contradict each other.

[...snip...] I made a minor edit; M&M actually measured the aether drift (10% predicted velocity), I believe they used Sagnac's interferometer.[...snip...]

Again, if the experiment proves an aether drift then it proves the Earth is moving.

Lastly, Sagnac didn't perform his experiment until the early 1900s and yet you believe that Michelson and Morley used his version of interferometer back in 1887??? Lift your game son.

Sagnac's experiment proves the aether using an interferometer and discredits the relativistic interpretation of Michaelson & Morley's experiment. M&M's experiment proves the Earth is motionless using a similar interferometer.

That's what I got and you're not going to beat it even if I get a bit mixed up without all the documents in front of me on my phone.

Also the aether drift cycle is 23h 56m, that's sidereal time and it's the stars that are in motion; Airy's Failure proves this empirically. The aether drift is the aether in motion, it has properties like a liquid crystal.


I've got three peer reviewed repeatable experiments that when taken together prove empirically that the Earth is motionless.


You have to ignore Sagnac's results, say there are waves in nothing and claim Airy's failure is an aberration to maintain that the Earth is moving. Go fuck your mother.

[Unknown Enforcement]

Well actually the truth is almost always opposite

[Instamined]

if the earth isn't flat how come the water stays on the earth instead of rolling off like any ball with water on it.

[notbatman]

if the earth isn't flat how come the water stays on the earth instead of rolling off like any ball with water on it.

The globalist will claim it's gravity that holds water to the surface of their ball. However gravity is an unproven theory constructed to support globalism and the false heliocentric model. Things fall because they're denser than air.

[nomad13666]

43km high + zero curvature = ONE FLAT EARTH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgmL-laOUX8

[o0‡0o]

May be we are in 14th century again

Sort of. Some will explore the new worlds.

It will be a rude awakening, but get used to the fact that you live in one of an Infinitive number of Geo Thermal Pockets on the Infinite Plane with a parallel running Infinitive Firmament.

[Jonar21]

May be we are in 14th century again

Sort of. Some will explore the new worlds.

It will be a rude awakening, but get used to the fact that you live in one of an Infinitive number of Geo Thermal Pockets on the Infinite Plane with a parallel running Infinitive Firmament.

It reminds me of ancient times, when the holy Inquisition destroyed all who thought differently or assumed with a new look at the world.

[nomad13666]

Ignore the halfwit hermaphrodite.

RESEARCH FLAT EARTH
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22flat+earth%22

[TooQik]

Fuck off, both M&M and Airy's Failure (keyword here is failure), prove the Earth is motionless. As for Sagnac's interferometer measurements at 10% of the predicted velocity of Earth's rotation and with a sidereal cycle they most certainly do not prove the Earth is rotating but that there's an aether drift.

So yes, we've done this dance before and you're still on the losing side of the argument, faggot.

Your ability to draw conclusions from data is right up there with your ability to will over people using your eloquent terms of endearment for others who don't share your point of view.

First you state that Michelson-Morley's and Airy's experiments prove that the Earth is motionless, then you go on that Sagnac's experiment proves that there's an aether drift. Your failure here is that if there is an aether drift then the Earth is moving through this aether and your two statements contradict each other.

[...snip...] I made a minor edit; M&M actually measured the aether drift (10% predicted velocity), I believe they used Sagnac's interferometer.[...snip...]

Again, if the experiment proves an aether drift then it proves the Earth is moving.

Lastly, Sagnac didn't perform his experiment until the early 1900s and yet you believe that Michelson and Morley used his version of interferometer back in 1887??? Lift your game son.

Sagnac's experiment proves the aether using an interferometer and discredits the relativistic interpretation of Michaelson & Morley's experiment. M&M's experiment proves the Earth is motionless using a similar interferometer.

That's what I got and you're not going to beat it even if I get a bit mixed up without all the documents in front of me on my phone.

Also the aether drift cycle is 23h 56m, that's sidereal time and it's the stars that are in motion; Airy's Failure proves this empirically. The aether drift is the aether in motion, it has properties like a liquid crystal.


I've got three peer reviewed repeatable experiments that when taken together prove empirically that the Earth is motionless.


You have to ignore Sagnac's results, say there are waves in nothing and claim Airy's failure is an aberration to maintain that the Earth is moving. Go fuck your mother.

I'm not questioning the validity of the three experiments, nor their outcomes, as you say, they are peer reviewed and repeatable experiments. What I am questioning is your conclusions from the results and your inability to do this objectively.

All three experiments failed to provide evidence of an aether. Now you can draw a number of conclusions from this:

• There is no aether.
• The Earth is not moving through the aether.
• The Earth and the aether move together in such a way as to cause zero aether wind (drag/drift).
• The experiment was flawed.

We can rule out the last conclusion as many others have reviewed the experiments and stated that they should work.

Given that you believe that the aether exists you should be able to see that both the second and third options are valid conclusions for an Earth and aether model, but given that you're pushing a flat Earth model you subjectively choose option two as it suits your needs rather than actually proving the Earth to be motionless.

Something that puzzles me is why you would believe in an aether in the first place. The aether was proposed as a medium for light to travel through in the vacuum of outer space. If you're a flat Earth believer you don't need the presence of an aether for light to travel through as the entirety of the Earth's atmosphere is contained within the dome.

[serbad]

Fuck off, both M&M and Airy's Failure (keyword here is failure), prove the Earth is motionless. As for Sagnac's interferometer measurements at 10% of the predicted velocity of Earth's rotation and with a sidereal cycle they most certainly do not prove the Earth is rotating but that there's an aether drift.

So yes, we've done this dance before and you're still on the losing side of the argument, faggot.

Your ability to draw conclusions from data is right up there with your ability to will over people using your eloquent terms of endearment for others who don't share your point of view.

First you state that Michelson-Morley's and Airy's experiments prove that the Earth is motionless, then you go on that Sagnac's experiment proves that there's an aether drift. Your failure here is that if there is an aether drift then the Earth is moving through this aether and your two statements contradict each other.

[...snip...] I made a minor edit; M&M actually measured the aether drift (10% predicted velocity), I believe they used Sagnac's interferometer.[...snip...]

Again, if the experiment proves an aether drift then it proves the Earth is moving.

Lastly, Sagnac didn't perform his experiment until the early 1900s and yet you believe that Michelson and Morley used his version of interferometer back in 1887??? Lift your game son.

Sagnac's experiment proves the aether using an interferometer and discredits the relativistic interpretation of Michaelson & Morley's experiment. M&M's experiment proves the Earth is motionless using a similar interferometer.

That's what I got and you're not going to beat it even if I get a bit mixed up without all the documents in front of me on my phone.

Also the aether drift cycle is 23h 56m, that's sidereal time and it's the stars that are in motion; Airy's Failure proves this empirically. The aether drift is the aether in motion, it has properties like a liquid crystal.


I've got three peer reviewed repeatable experiments that when taken together prove empirically that the Earth is motionless.


You have to ignore Sagnac's results, say there are waves in nothing and claim Airy's failure is an aberration to maintain that the Earth is moving. Go fuck your mother.

I'm not questioning the validity of the three experiments, nor their outcomes, as you say, they are peer reviewed and repeatable experiments. What I am questioning is your conclusions from the results and your inability to do this objectively.

All three experiments failed to provide evidence of an aether. Now you can draw a number of conclusions from this:

• There is no aether.
• The Earth is not moving through the aether.
• The Earth and the aether move together in such a way as to cause zero aether wind (drag/drift).
• The experiment was flawed.

We can rule out the last conclusion as many others have reviewed the experiments and stated that they should work.

Given that you believe that the aether exists you should be able to see that both the second and third options are valid conclusions for an Earth and aether model, but given that you're pushing a flat Earth model you subjectively choose option two as it suits your needs rather than actually proving the Earth to be motionless.

Something that puzzles me is why you would believe in an aether in the first place. The aether was proposed as a medium for light to travel through in the vacuum of outer space. If you're a flat Earth believer you don't need the presence of an aether for light to travel through as the entirety of the Earth's atmosphere is contained within the dome.

It was Michael faraday that came up with the term aether for what he described as the primordial atmosphere that permeates everything and is made up of pre hydrogen elements..the bits left out of the periodic table that no one can prove don't exist.
He uses this to explain action at a distance.
If you want to go further into it you could try Maxwell's work but it would take years to even begin to understand what he was talking about.. Heaviside's work would be easier.

[DicePlayer21]

https://i.imgsafe.org/26a2ddfaa7.jpg
Ignore the halfwit hermaphrodite intelligent and unbelievably sexy faggot.
RESEARCH FLAT EARTH
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22flat+earth%22

Only stupid niggers respond to people on their ignore lists.

Exhibit A: nomad13666

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=digpdxSSECI :: Flat earthers full retard mode episode 1

LOL.  My kids loved the series.

It can be used as an educational tool in elementary schools. Stop the video and ask the students to explain why the FE claims are wrong.One by one.

lol I do not even know how to react to a topic with flat ground. I always think that here they are joking, but they do not speak seriously.

[nomad13666]

lol I do not even know how to react to a topic with flat ground. I always think that here they are joking, but they do not speak seriously.

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

RESEARCH FLAT EARTH
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22flat+earth%22

[o0‡0o]

It will be a rude awakening, but get used to the fact that you live in one of an Infinitive number of Geo Thermal Pockets on the Infinite Plane with a parallel running Infinitive Firmament.

Which Special Nigger School did they teach that to you ?

Was it your church, perchance ?

You proxy of the Enemy, aka cheap sell-out can shove your Religion you know where.

Here, get a load of this

[BADecker]

lol I do not even know how to react to a topic with flat ground. I always think that here they are joking, but they do not speak seriously.

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

RESEARCH FLAT EARTH
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22flat+earth%22

Condemnation without proper investigation is worse.