It is currently Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:22 pm


Announcement: Registrations are currently disabled. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

General all purpose critical analysis and discussions on the world around us.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

KoncreteMind

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 11 March 2014
  • Thanks Received: 85

Re: You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

PostWed Mar 15, 2017 3:08 am

Scimitar wrote:Let us take a look at Isaiah 40:22 first.

Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..."

It should be understood that in Hebrew, there is no word for "Sphere". The word "Khoog" in Hebrew translates to the following: Circle, Circuit, Compass.

Knowing that there is no word for "Sphere" in Hebrew, and that the word used is Khoog (translation: circle), will most definitely confuse many into believing the earth is flat. Let's now take a look at if this is actually what the Bible(s) are attempting to teach God willing.

You believe and are taught that God is "Omni-Present". That He looks down on the earth from every angle. The Earth would appear to be a circle from any angle - because God is far above the earth looking down onto it - no matter which direction HE looks at earth from - it can only appear as a circle from every angle if the earth is a sphere.

But, if it is a flat disc with a dome shaped roof, only from the top angle would the earth appear as a circle, meanwhile all other angles would prove the bible untrue. The earth mis-shapen and God - a liar. If you believe in flat earth. Isaiah fits a spherical earth in context but with linear minds - flat earth, which is failed understanding.

How do you rebuttal this science, logic and contextual understanding of your holy book?


Your "logic" consists of you saying a shape changes shape depending on the angle its viewed upon? :roll: A circle is flat. It doesnt matter what angle I see a circle from, its still a circle. Just like you Scimi. Just because I cant see your face, doesnt mean you're not Scimi. Even if you dont look like Scimi from the angle Im seeing you, you're still Scimi. Terrible analogy. But I know, you're trying to make your view on what the bible says make sense. Just stop and give up. They believed in a flat earth with water around it. None of your excuses will take away from that...

Let's move on Koncrete_Mind.

I was thinking about the story of Jonah and the Whale and was reminded of Ephesians 4:9 telling us of Jesus pbuh descending into the heart of the earth. Can mankind be in the heart of a circle any more than he can be in the belly of the fish - from Ephesians 4:9 "first descended into the lower parts of the earth".

Job 26:7 reads as follows: He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

If North is the center of the earth in your flat earth map - bro KM - where is "south" according to the Cardinal Directions (north east west n south) given in your scripture??? Everywhere the rim of the flat earth circumferences over??? Is this sound dissemination of your scripture which you entertain? Or is starting to look bogus? Are you starting to see how bogus this flat earth malarky is if using the Bible(s) as your inferences? Job 26:7 is clearly comparing the earth to the other planets in space "He spreads out the Northern skies over empty space; He suspends the earth over nothing" - Same as the Moon, the Sun, and the planets which surround it.


"North south east and west" are human concoctions. Just like numbers. But yall place so much truth in humans, that you think these things are automatically true when they're not. They're human creations set to make sense of our existence, but you cant act as if they're automatically accepted truths. Either way, we could make "north" the center of our existence (the north pole in the flat earth model) or the uppermost of our existence (the most northern point of the flat earth circle). It just depends on the person I guess. Nothing changes really. You say its malarkey but how? In either theory, the "north" of every continent is the north pole. The south is antarctica (which is a ring around the whole earth. In either theory, north and south leads us to the same place.

Job 26:10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.
[/b] - this fits with Job 26:7, which mentions the Earth is suspended in space like the moon and sun, and 26:10 is giving us a visual identifier to know it is a sphere and not a circle - "he marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness" - This is only possible with a spherical model of the earth, and not a flat one. See?

There are more observations as well, but for now I will leave it here,

Looking forward to your reply bro KM.

The problem with you guys is that you'll take that verse LITERAL, but what happens when you come across the verse that says the earth is stable? Or supported by pillars? Or that the sun and moon BOTH move? Well then, the "poetic" excuses come out. But when it says what you want it to say, we read it as is... Cant say that I approach truth like that personally, so Im not with you on this one...


As demonstrated, it is not. I have method, and I do not shun science, astronomy, math, and religious narratives in my method of investigating matters of truth inside of this study.

If anything bro KM, I can claim something about you, but I will not, as it serves no purpose. Instead, I'd prefer if you would attempt to rebut the contextual dissemination of the verses from the old and New testaments which I shared in this post,

God bless,

Scimi


Claim whatever you wish. I feel like while me and Loki disagree, we have kept it at the very least SEMI respectful. So thats why I try to word my words wisely so not to offend or start off a 1 on 1 flaming war with him. We can disagree on a topic, but theres really no need to go much further than that. But if somethings on your mind concerning my person, then say it. Saying it without saying it as you just did, is pointless. Especially over the net where you can think and reread before hitting submit. At the end of the day though, your theory relies on man. And thats no matter how you slice it because, like I told Loki, your senses do not match the belief you hold..
Offline

KoncreteMind

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 11 March 2014
  • Thanks Received: 85

Re: You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

PostWed Mar 15, 2017 4:09 am

Loki wrote:
I've not been watching 2 hour long YouTube videos about why the Earth is flat or anything, but while researching these things and looking for answers that might make sense to you I've learned a lot about Flat Earth beliefs as well as the science side of things. Trying to wrap my mind around a lot of the Flat Earth stuff isn't easy by any means, which is why I still struggle with details of how you guys see things.


I've never watched a 1 hour video of a flat earth video let alone 2 hour lol. But I think you have to HONESTLY seek these things. Im not sure if it was you or flix, but I remember one of yall starting off as trolls before eventually seeing merit in conspiracies (or simply seeing that it was a waste of time to be a troll, correct me if Im wrong if its not you). If everytime you research something you look for the "official explanation" of that something, as a conspiracy theorist, you wont get far. The official explanation by mainstream is offered in alot of theories but why that would be sought out when considering possible conspiracies? Idk. I mean from a mainstreamer I understand that. But conspiracy theorists? I dont know. I cant say I see why they would search out the mainstream narrative (and run with it off bat) when considering conspiracies or possible conspiracies...

The reason why I don't see much point in bothering with the arguments of why our senses don't match up to the Globe Earth is because it's very clear that our senses don't indicate a globe Earth. I don't think you'll find anyone who will argue that necessarily. That is why ancient peoples thought the Earth was flat up until the 1600s. Once we created the tools for better understanding of other planets and the solar system we began to rethink these beliefs and with better and better technology and discernment we eventually realized that the Earth wasn't indeed flat, and then we went about with proving that theory. You simply don't accept the proof, but that doesn't invalidate it to anyone but you. In a way I completely understand why you feel the way you do, it's a far simpler belief from a simpler time and it also speaks to you due to your distrust of the government and NASA. I get it, but I just don't find it credible and I don't believe you've offered any evidence that truly suggests that the Earth is flat, other than "Look around you," but that's simply encouraging scientific ignorance. Whether I trust the government or not (I don't really), I do trust science, and while I understand that NASA is a government entity, they also aren't the source of our understanding of the shape of the Earth, they are just the only ones who can really offer picture proof and that is the part you can't accept, and while I don't agree with you, I at least understand why you wouldn't accept their pictures as proof.


Well thats the great thing that can happen with discussion. Not that we agree on whatever belief, but that at the very least, we can see where each is coming from. Of course, being taught like you and ultimately believing as you do until 1 or 2 years ago, I could see where you were coming from. Im glad that you can see where Im coming from, even if you think Im an overly paranoid skeptic lol. At the end of the day though, it doesnt make sense to me for a "conspiracy theorist" to mock those who trust their own senses/experiences over others, when it comes to the belief of the flat earth. Your belief, in a roundabout way, is founded on the words/beliefs/experiences of other men. The flat earth belief, again in a roubdabout way, is founded on the experiences of SELF. SELF, recognizes a flat,stable earth with the moon and sun moving above it everytime it steps outside. So why is the belief ridiculed by conspiracy theorists based on the FACT (that even you admitted) that it fits our senses? While you base your understanding off NASA telling the truth when they say they went to the moon, or the pictures they took while edited, are based on truth.

1.) There is no reason that the moon and sun couldn't be in the sky at the same time in the scientific model. While the moon is visible in the sky during the day for us, it would be a new moon or sliver moon to the other side of the world because the Earth is currently blocking the sun from hitting the moon for them, and then vice versa. Comparatively, either the FET model doesn't really make sense or we have two moons that look identical.

2.) I'm going to go out on a limb and say you aren't doing a good job visualizing it, despite the link to a diagram of it, as it was a well-used trading route when moving goods from Australia/NZ to the UK. I don't know if you didn't check the link, but it provides this diagram: Image

If the Earth was flat, this never would have been considered a viable trading route.

3.) Delving further into this one seems like a can of worms, so it might be better to drop it. I guess I will decide based on your answer: What do you think dictates the sun's travel around the Earth and why it gets further from us at some points (for winter, I don't know how else you guys would explain winter) and why it alters it's course enough to alter our time of day and such? The scientific model makes sense of this, but I'm curious as to the FE reasoning.

4.) Just answer the above question, I think it will ultimately amount to the same explanation.

5.) Got a new one to add: How do you explain for the phases of the moon? The reason for the phases is that the Earth blocks the sun from shining on portions of the moon, and so when those portion aren't hit by sunlight like the rest of the moon they don't reflect the sunlight and so we can't see them as well. By Flat Earth beliefs, the moon is it's own light source, correct? What is the purpose of the moon deciding to shine only part of itself at different times of the month? And how come the dim part of the moon is always a circle?


1. Can you run this by me one more time? If the moon is shining on one side of the earth, and the sun on the other, how can we who see the sun, see the moon as well as those who are on the dark side of the earth also see the moon? Its an impossibility unless we allow the room for some type of reflection... But if you allow that in your theory, you also have to make room for that in the flat earth theory.. Imo, if its dark in lets say Germany, then theres no way they can see the moon, while Californians see the moon as well. Not in your theory or mine...

2. I guess I didnt take a look at the link in total but am glad you posted the pic to help. You have to understand that the flat earth position (minus all the disinfo) is filled with people who are often self reliant (when it comes to info) trying to make sense of the lies/inconsistencies they were taught. Its totally different from you, who can simply google scientists who are working hard to make sense of their theories. Flat earthers (so to say) are working on their own. You? You have help with your belief. 'Anything you dont understand, you can google, and find an explanation. Not so much with flat earthers, to which at least some of which, Im sure is disinfo

3. I believe there is and was a Creator who set ALL things into existence. So whatever the sun is doing, is because of this Creator. As far as seasons, you should look at that Robert Gleason's map, which has the sun rotating in one place, in one season, and another in winter. Astrology deals with this

4. (Answered above I hope)

5. I think a great mistake, is assuming that a person that believes the earth is flat, or at least isnt a globe, understands ALL that concerns the flat earth. I dont. As I type this post, I havent connected the flat earth with moon phases. I'd just say that the moon being visible when the sun is out contradicts the belief that the moon shines on the dark side of the earth, while the sun shines on the bright side of the earth...
Offline
User avatar

Loki

Trickster God

Administrator

4 stars

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks Received: 875

Re: You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

PostWed Mar 15, 2017 12:23 pm

Karlysymon wrote:Iam not a scientist in anyway nor do i have a science background so iam guessing (and any one can correct me) that any sun of any solar system would certainly be bigger than the planets that orbit it. Because its not just a source of light but also a heat source. The heat in the earth's core isn't enough to favourably sustain life here without the sun and if the sun was that small, as in the FE gif, we would freeze to death.


This is correct, we would certainly freeze to death according to our current understanding of existence. FETs want to throw that understanding out of the window and start from scratch I suppose. I can't say that they are all incredibly religious, but I have a hard time understanding how anyone who is not religious could possibly make sense of the theory, and I think that may be where KM and my's mutual understanding falls apart because he can simply say something like, "The sun puts off enough heat during the right season, despite being far smaller than the Earth, because God made it that way and so it is." (He didn't say this, I'm just creating a hypothetical reasoning) But for me, while I believe in something of a Creating Force, the idea that he might propose simply doesn't hold any weight with me or my perspective, so while a tiny sun and moon orbiting above a flat Earth could possibly make sense to him, it can't logically make sense to me because like you said, we would freeze to death, among many other issues I've taken with the FET.
This message brought to you by My Brain, courtesy of My Fingers.

"We all are to some extent [agnostic]... So yes, I'm an 'agnostic', in as much as I don't actually know what happens when I die. I choose to operate under the assumption that God does not exist. I have no need for God in my life, the concept of a 'God' feels incredibly made up to me. It is not requisite for my every day living. For some people it is. They are 'theistic agnostics,' I am an 'atheistic agnostic.'" - Cara Santa Maria
Offline
User avatar

Scimitar

Servant of God

Registered User

4 stars

  • Posts: 2106
  • Joined: 01 March 2013
  • Location: Unplugged.
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks Received: 582

Re: You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

PostWed Mar 15, 2017 12:59 pm

I'll leave him to you Loki, he's not making any sense to me at all now.

Scimi
Image


I have nothing to do with any recommendations to join any war on any person , race or community. I do not support ISIS nor any other movement, I seek opportunities to unite mankind, I seek to look at common ground and choose to ignore differences. I do not support violence, I condemn it. I have no affiliations with any promoting of violence be it political, racial or religious.
Offline
User avatar

Loki

Trickster God

Administrator

4 stars

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks Received: 875

Re: You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

PostWed Mar 15, 2017 2:02 pm

KoncreteMind wrote:
I've never watched a 1 hour video of a flat earth video let alone 2 hour lol. But I think you have to HONESTLY seek these things. Im not sure if it was you or flix, but I remember one of yall starting off as trolls before eventually seeing merit in conspiracies (or simply seeing that it was a waste of time to be a troll, correct me if Im wrong if its not you). If everytime you research something you look for the "official explanation" of that something, as a conspiracy theorist, you wont get far. The official explanation by mainstream is offered in alot of theories but why that would be sought out when considering possible conspiracies? Idk. I mean from a mainstreamer I understand that. But conspiracy theorists? I dont know. I cant say I see why they would search out the mainstream narrative (and run with it off bat) when considering conspiracies or possible conspiracies...


I thought Dubay's, which is the most popular to my knowledge, was at least an hour, though I thought it was longer. Anyway, that doesn't matter as I was mostly joking.

I've always been a skeptic of pretty much everything, though admittedly things like how the solar system operates and how the seasons work and gravity and the tides and such have never struck me as conspicuous really so I suppose I've never been all that skeptic of them, but anyway I'm often skeptic of the official stories and also skeptic of the conspiracy theories. Like you, in a sense, I like for things to make sense within my personal perspective or world view, so if they don't (like, for example, the idea that demons and Satan are a real thing that one can interact with) I will be skeptical of them and pick at them and research them and see if I can find valid proof that makes sense to me.

But to answer more directly, I did originally join the VC forums to make fun of and troll the people who thought Rihanna and Jay Z and Eminem were worshipping the devil and secretly ruling the world and whatnot.

All that said, my level of conspiracy theorist is far below most here, and even farther below yours. We sort of discussed this in our last long chat. Lets say between 1-10 you are a level 7 CT, I'm probably a 2.5 or so. Maybe just a 2 depending on the day.



1. Can you run this by me one more time? If the moon is shining on one side of the earth, and the sun on the other, how can we who see the sun, see the moon as well as those who are on the dark side of the earth also see the moon? Its an impossibility unless we allow the room for some type of reflection... But if you allow that in your theory, you also have to make room for that in the flat earth theory.. Imo, if its dark in lets say Germany, then theres no way they can see the moon, while Californians see the moon as well. Not in your theory or mine...


I'll have to develop a better understanding of how this works honestly. I can work out in my head how the lunar phases work (the Earth blocks the sunlight from the Moon as the moon travels around the Earth causing only certain portions of the moon to be lit for us) but I'll admit I'm having trouble figuring out how we can see the moon during the day here and during the night. My immediate guess would be that if we see the moon during the day here, then we wouldn't be able to see it at night because our side of the Earth should turn away from it. I know that the moon is out this morning, so I will take a look at midday to see if it is there and then again tonight and that should help me solidify my understanding. If I'm able to see it the entire day then I'm not sure how that makes sense, though as I'm typing this I wonder if I may just misunderstand the moon's orbit and that it doesn't necessarily orbit the Earth around the equator like my brain wants to think, and I think that may be the part that is fucking me up.

Here is a diagram of the moon's orbit around Earth: Image

So I'm just kind of better understanding this as I type, so hopefully it makes sense.

Okay, so the thing that I think is fucking me up is that it's hard to reconcile the fact that the moon hardly moves (relatively speaking) while we are doing a full rotation, so while it appears to us that it is moving across the sky (as FETs believe) it is actually stationary. That's a hard thing to make your brain reconcile when you are trying to really understand how it works. So lets use America as the example for one side of the Earth and Australia as the example for the other side. If during the day America can see the moon in the sky, the Australians would not be able to see it at night, or at least not the whole night. But as the moon moves along it's orbit it's time spent in the daytime decreases on the American side and increases on the Australian side. I found an article that isn't really about this necessarily, but it does touch on it and how many people (myself included obviously) don't really take the time to understand this cycle.

http://www.space.com/17561-new-moon-exp ... hases.html
What lies behind people's confusion about lunar skywatching is a misunderstanding of the relationship between the sun and the moon. Many people believe that the moon dominates the night sky as the sun dominates the daytime sky. In fact, because of its orbit around the Earth, the moon spends only half its time in the night sky. The rest of the time it shares the daytime sky with the sun.

For the first half of the lunar month, as the moon waxes (grows) from new moon to full moon, the moon spends the afternoon in the daytime sky. For the second half of the lunar month, as it wanes (shrinks) from full moon to new moon, the moon spends the morning in the daytime sky.

On just one night in the whole month does the moon shine all night long: the night of full moon. On that night, the moon rises in the east as the sun sets in the west, and sets in the west as the sun rises in the east.


Let me know if this makes any sense to you. It is certainly confusing. I'm still going to monitor the moon today out of curiosity because I want to understand it better and I'll let you know what I see, or you can do the same perhaps, are you North American? I wish Sarge was still around, he is Australian and could really help with this experiment.

Unfortunately, of course, for your theory, even if the scientific model were erroneous (and while confusing to a mere high school graduate like me at times, I don't believe they have gotten it wrong), that doesn't help the obvious fallacy in the Flat Earth model that the sun and moon both being present in the sky presents. Let alone how solar eclipses and lunar eclipses would work in that model, as well as the lunar phases as you've admitted they have no answer for (at least to your current knowledge).

2. I guess I didnt take a look at the link in total but am glad you posted the pic to help. You have to understand that the flat earth position (minus all the disinfo) is filled with people who are often self reliant (when it comes to info) trying to make sense of the lies/inconsistencies they were taught. Its totally different from you, who can simply google scientists who are working hard to make sense of their theories. Flat earthers (so to say) are working on their own. You? You have help with your belief. 'Anything you dont understand, you can google, and find an explanation. Not so much with flat earthers, to which at least some of which, Im sure is disinfo


Fair enough, but these things should be addressed and understood right? Even if you don't believe the scientific model, there is at least reasoning for why we believe it and why it works, whether you find that reasoning believable or not. For myself, I couldn't subscribe to a Flat Earth theory with so many question marks attached, though I do understand their plight.

3. I believe there is and was a Creator who set ALL things into existence. So whatever the sun is doing, is because of this Creator. As far as seasons, you should look at that Robert Gleason's map, which has the sun rotating in one place, in one season, and another in winter. Astrology deals with this


Right, so your interpretation of the Creator is different than mine, but in a way I believe the same thing, but I just believe that the Creator Force brought our universe into existence in a way where the Earth orbits a stationary sun at the perfect distance and with the perfect atmosphere to foster life, which to me seems far more miraculous than the alternative, but that's just me. Of course, by my beliefs the Creator Force is the sun and the Earth, etc. so the idea of sun worship and all that is of no consequence to me, in fact it actually makes some sense.
This message brought to you by My Brain, courtesy of My Fingers.

"We all are to some extent [agnostic]... So yes, I'm an 'agnostic', in as much as I don't actually know what happens when I die. I choose to operate under the assumption that God does not exist. I have no need for God in my life, the concept of a 'God' feels incredibly made up to me. It is not requisite for my every day living. For some people it is. They are 'theistic agnostics,' I am an 'atheistic agnostic.'" - Cara Santa Maria
Offline

KoncreteMind

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 11 March 2014
  • Thanks Received: 85

Re: You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

PostWed Mar 15, 2017 9:03 pm

Loki wrote:I thought Dubay's, which is the most popular to my knowledge, was at least an hour, though I thought it was longer. Anyway, that doesn't matter as I was mostly joking.

I've always been a skeptic of pretty much everything, though admittedly things like how the solar system operates and how the seasons work and gravity and the tides and such have never struck me as conspicuous really so I suppose I've never been all that skeptic of them, but anyway I'm often skeptic of the official stories and also skeptic of the conspiracy theories. Like you, in a sense, I like for things to make sense within my personal perspective or world view, so if they don't (like, for example, the idea that demons and Satan are a real thing that one can interact with) I will be skeptical of them and pick at them and research them and see if I can find valid proof that makes sense to me.

But to answer more directly, I did originally join the VC forums to make fun of and troll the people who thought Rihanna and Jay Z and Eminem were worshipping the devil and secretly ruling the world and whatnot.

All that said, my level of conspiracy theorist is far below most here, and even farther below yours. We sort of discussed this in our last long chat. Lets say between 1-10 you are a level 7 CT, I'm probably a 2.5 or so. Maybe just a 2 depending on the day.


I know you were joking, but was merely talking about my lack of attention span when it comes to most things. An hour long video that I have to sit and watch (cant really play it in the background because the flat earth belief is alot of visual stuff) so I cant say I've had the patience to sit thru a long video like that lol. Anyways, a 2 out of 10 though? What makes you so low after being around conspiracy boards for so long? You never looked into them too deeply, or think they dont matter or we cant stop it, we overthink things as CT's or something else?


I'll have to develop a better understanding of how this works honestly. I can work out in my head how the lunar phases work (the Earth blocks the sunlight from the Moon as the moon travels around the Earth causing only certain portions of the moon to be lit for us) but I'll admit I'm having trouble figuring out how we can see the moon during the day here and during the night. My immediate guess would be that if we see the moon during the day here, then we wouldn't be able to see it at night because our side of the Earth should turn away from it. I know that the moon is out this morning, so I will take a look at midday to see if it is there and then again tonight and that should help me solidify my understanding. If I'm able to see it the entire day then I'm not sure how that makes sense, though as I'm typing this I wonder if I may just misunderstand the moon's orbit and that it doesn't necessarily orbit the Earth around the equator like my brain wants to think, and I think that may be the part that is fucking me up.

Here is a diagram of the moon's orbit around Earth: Image

So I'm just kind of better understanding this as I type, so hopefully it makes sense.

Okay, so the thing that I think is fucking me up is that it's hard to reconcile the fact that the moon hardly moves (relatively speaking) while we are doing a full rotation, so while it appears to us that it is moving across the sky (as FETs believe) it is actually stationary. That's a hard thing to make your brain reconcile when you are trying to really understand how it works. So lets use America as the example for one side of the Earth and Australia as the example for the other side. If during the day America can see the moon in the sky, the Australians would not be able to see it at night, or at least not the whole night. But as the moon moves along it's orbit it's time spent in the daytime decreases on the American side and increases on the Australian side. I found an article that isn't really about this necessarily, but it does touch on it and how many people (myself included obviously) don't really take the time to understand this cycle.

http://www.space.com/17561-new-moon-exp ... hases.html

Let me know if this makes any sense to you. It is certainly confusing. I'm still going to monitor the moon today out of curiosity because I want to understand it better and I'll let you know what I see, or you can do the same perhaps, are you North American? I wish Sarge was still around, he is Australian and could really help with this experiment.

Unfortunately, of course, for your theory, even if the scientific model were erroneous (and while confusing to a mere high school graduate like me at times, I don't believe they have gotten it wrong), that doesn't help the obvious fallacy in the Flat Earth model that the sun and moon both being present in the sky presents. Let alone how solar eclipses and lunar eclipses would work in that model, as well as the lunar phases as you've admitted they have no answer for (at least to your current knowledge).


As you said, this would be something that could be tested if we knew somebody on the opposite side of the world who could tell us what they see at a certain time. To me, I wonder if the link is a legit explanation only because Im pretty certain that when we see the moon in the day, that it doesnt mean the moon is not being seen in the night elsewhere. Again, with someone on the opposite side of the world, we could test this on a certain day we're seeing the moon and ask the other person if they're seeing it in nighttime. If they are, I think this is the SAME fallacy that you claim is in the flat earth model. The moon and sun should not be able to be seen at the same time in EITHER model.

I think it was yesterday morning that I saw the moon in the early morning with the sun rising, and it was there I think up until around 10 to noon (last time I took notice of it). So what your link is describing is that while its visible on our side of the world during the day time, its not visible on the other side of the world during night? But as night goes on, it becomes visible on the other side (and not ours anymore)? Solid explanation imo if true, but Im doubting that when we're seeing the moon on our side, that it isnt bringing some type of light to the darkness on the other side of the world. Definitely not trying to poohoo on your explanation because its solid, but Im just not sure if us seeing the moon in the day time, correlates with the other side of the world NOT seeing it at nighttime..


Fair enough, but these things should be addressed and understood right? Even if you don't believe the scientific model, there is at least reasoning for why we believe it and why it works, whether you find that reasoning believable or not. For myself, I couldn't subscribe to a Flat Earth theory with so many question marks attached, though I do understand their plight.


I definitely do think it should be addressed and understood. I just feel like only on one side of the argument is having everything scrutinized by the majority, while that same majority accepts the other side of the argument with little to no fight. THATS the problem imo. I think at best, we should lay out both sides of the issue then come to a conclusion. But when we're taught that these things are obvious facts to which anyone who argues otherwise is dumb and archaic, then I dont think we get much of anywhere. And like I said there are questions about the heliocentric model too, but they get to argue those questions away with forces while the flat earth has to fit everything in line on its own merit. For instance, they say all the water of the earth sticks to the earth because of gravity right? Well, I remember growing up playing basketball, and if our ball got wet one way we'd get the water off was to throw the ball in the air while spinning it. Which kinda directly contradicts what our earth does while spinning water (the water stays on the earth). Oh but thats because of gravity which can hold down tons and tons of water or 10 ton trains down to the earth, but cant hold down a balloon with helium in it. Thats a question mark to a skeptic. But when they teach us these things as accepted, obvious facts, of course we're not going question them. When someone else comes along with a different view, we question them though and try to scrutinize that view. If one thing doesnt add up, the whole view is awry. When one thing from theres doesnt add up, we can create something to MAKE it add up. Thats a problem imo

Right, so your interpretation of the Creator is different than mine, but in a way I believe the same thing, but I just believe that the Creator Force brought our universe into existence in a way where the Earth orbits a stationary sun at the perfect distance and with the perfect atmosphere to foster life, which to me seems far more miraculous than the alternative, but that's just me. Of course, by my beliefs the Creator Force is the sun and the Earth, etc. so the idea of sun worship and all that is of no consequence to me, in fact it actually makes some sense.

'
Why does it have to be miraculous for it to make the most sense? Our different perspectives of the Creator probably do get in the way of how we view each other's side. For me, I cant see there being a Creator who creates our existence in a way to where we need MAN to explain it for us. To see us walk outside and immediately be met with men who say "Yes it seems like the earth is flat and stable with the sun and moon moving above it but its not. Heres what it is doing:...." doesnt make much sense with my view of the Creator. Im not sure what you mean by "the Creator Force is the sun and the earth" but I assume you mean the universe is the Creator (not just the sun and earth). I know you kinda went over this in some other thread,but I have seemingly forgotten.
Offline
User avatar

Karlysymon

Registered User

1.5 stars

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 09 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 282

Re: You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

PostWed Mar 15, 2017 9:44 pm

Koncrete wrote:Do you know the NBA player, Kyrie Irving? Well if not, a couple of weeks ago he said he believed the earth was flat. If you would have looked at what happened then you'd see that he got roasted for it by media and fans alike Why? Because (imo) the
brainwashing is complete with most people..

Since we are supposed to examine all sides. What makes you think Kyrie and
B.O.B aren't disinfo? Are you ABSOLUTELY sure that they aren't? We know Alex Jones is disinfo and yet he takes a bartering from MSM. Everyone loves a good victim. And victims multiply a mass of sympathisers.
Offline

KoncreteMind

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 11 March 2014
  • Thanks Received: 85

Re: You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

PostThu Mar 16, 2017 3:20 am

Karlysymon wrote:
Koncrete wrote:Do you know the NBA player, Kyrie Irving? Well if not, a couple of weeks ago he said he believed the earth was flat. If you would have looked at what happened then you'd see that he got roasted for it by media and fans alike Why? Because (imo) the
brainwashing is complete with most people..

Since we are supposed to examine all sides. What makes you think Kyrie and
B.O.B aren't disinfo? Are you ABSOLUTELY sure that they aren't? We know Alex Jones is disinfo and yet he takes a bartering from MSM. Everyone loves a good victim. And victims multiply a mass of sympathisers.


Just because Alex Jones is disinfo, doesnt mean that EVERYTHING that comes out of his mouth is a lie. He says some truth, but only up to an extent. So with BOB and Kyrie, I think they're in on it too because of the industries they are in. But that doesnt mean that in this instance they are lying or misleading. We have to judge that independently and not throw out the baby with the bathwater so to say...
Offline
User avatar

Karlysymon

Registered User

1.5 stars

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 09 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 282

Re: You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

PostThu Mar 16, 2017 2:53 pm

Yes, that is true but we have examined the physical evidence and it doesn't support FET. Not just that, but TPTB have nothing to gain from maintaining a lie, not just for decades but aeons. Just like Alex Jones claims man went to the moon, all evidence shows that to be BS and at the end of the day TPTB have much to gain from perpetuating that fantasy. Motive (s) justifies the act. FET lacks (for me) a rock-solid motive.
Offline

KoncreteMind

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 11 March 2014
  • Thanks Received: 85

Re: You know I had to do it: The Official Flat Earth thread

PostThu Mar 16, 2017 4:30 pm

Karlysymon wrote:Yes, that is true but we have examined the physical evidence and it doesn't support FET.


I dont think we need to go over again that your senses undoubtedly match a flat and stable earth with a sun/moon moving above it. THAT is physical evidence. I think you'd be better off going the route of Loki, who says that the earth does seem flat from our perspective, but thats because we do not have the tools to see the full extent of the earth. Saying the physical evidence doesnt match is ignoring all the pictures from airplanes, mountains, open seas/oceans, that show a flat surface as far as the eye can see as well as your day to day experience. I havent seen anything that tells me I should ignore these senses for whatever certain men tell me while Im sure you feel otherwise.

Not just that, but TPTB have nothing to gain from maintaining a lie, not just for decades but aeons. Just like Alex Jones claims man went to the moon, all evidence shows that to be BS and at the end of the day TPTB have much to gain from perpetuating that fantasy. Motive (s) justifies the act. FET lacks (for me) a rock-solid motive.


Well despite having been given plenty of possible motives, I dont think that a set in stone motive even matters. Like in murder mysteries, just because we cannot find a motive, doesnt mean a certain suspect didnt commit the murder. At the end of the day, what Admiral Byrd said he found should ring an alarm not that the earth is flat, but that they're hiding something. Or the fact that Mike Degruy went deep into the ocean and somehow found an underwater lake that he said he tried to descend into but bounced off of. Or even August Piccard to elevated high enough to claim that the earth appeared to be a flat disc with upturned edges

| Show Quote
Image


Then the media puts his exploits in a commercial and show him penetrating an expanse of water after elevating past the earth's stratosphere. As I said in my last post, I dont have to strain to connect these things to the possibility that they're lying about our existence in regards to the planet. But either way, at the end of the day, for you who believes the bible is from God, it does say the earth is flat with a sun/moon moving above it and an expanse of water above the earth's sky. So if you do believe the bible to be true, I'd suggest you research what it says about that then pray on it. If its that serious to you (I think it should be but to each their own). For those that take the bible as a myth, then whatever it says is irrelevant. It shouldnt be for those who believe the book came from the Creator of Everything, but again, to each their own. Either way I appreciate the convo, from you and Loki especially..
PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron