I actually grew up a believing in God, so you are right many people do have faith while also believing those 3 things. However I came to realize the earth was flat a few years ago, after scoffing at the idea any time I heard it. I was eventually convinced of flat earth for scientific reasons, not biblical reasons. I actually grew up never realizing the Bible describes a flat domed earth. I finally gave flat earth a chance when various Flat earthers made videos that convinced me the moon landing and International space station is fake. I was impressed with their reasoning and proof, so I got curious how they can believe the earth is flat. There are hundreds of reasons why I think the earth is flat but to keep it simple I will give you my top 3:
First I am a Mariner and have often observed objects or landmarks far further than I should with earth curve geometry. There are atmospheric affects that can bend light or create mirage, but the sightings I am referring to are far below the curve of the earth and appear as though you are seeing it on a flat plane. These sightings are best done over water so terrain heights can't interfere. All you need to know is your height of eye, the objects height, and the distance and you can calculate how much curve should block your sight.
2nd, Airplanes set their gyroscopes before they take off so the pilot knows exactly which way down is no matter what maneuvers take place. Gyroscopes are unaffected by gravity, acceleration, deceleration, inertia or any other motion, they maintain their orientation. If you flew from USA to Australia your Gyroscope would tell you the plane is upside down by the time you got around a spherical earth. In addition earth is spinning over 1000 mph at the equator, so that motion would throw the gyro off too. Let's not forget we are orbiting the sun, and the sun is orbiting the milky way (allegedly). Gyroscopes can only work on a flat stationary plane that doesn't move. Also a plane flying 600mph would have to dive 2400 feet every 6 min in order to not fly off into space, according to earth curve geometry. That doesn't make any sense.
Finally Antarctica. If I were able to fly from Buenos Aires Argentina to Perth Australia, the shortest route would be straight over the middle of Antarctica. I picked those cities cause the are prominent and line up well. They are 7840 miles apart, totally doable flight. No one has ever flown across or used Antarctica to circumnavigate because it's impossible. Look up flights in the southern hemisphere, they make zero sense on a sphere, but perfect sense on flat earth. People circumnavigate east to west all the time (they are really doing a circle around the north pole), but no one can do a north south circumnavigation. The Buenos Aires to Perth flight would convince me I'm wrong if we can do it in one flight over Antarctica. I'm not picky though any city from south America to Australia that takes us over Antarctica would do. But it's impossible cause Antarctica is not a pole.
In your learned view, the view in this picture is caused by the “curve of the earth” getting in the way of the bottom of the windmills.
In my view, refraction through the standard density gradient (tending to cause light to curve convexly towards the water/ground) is responsible for the effect.
You may be interested in discussing / exploring differing views as well as exchanging your own over on flatearthresearch!
Good question, I'm glad you asked. Below i linked you a Playlist of videos that address that exact topic. Please check it out as the visual aid makes it far more comprehensible. But to state it in my own words, if I were to watch a vessel sail off into the horizon until it vanishes, due to the limits of our vision it will vanish as if it's melting into the horizon. However with the semi recent invention of cameras with high zoom capability while recording, these objects can be brought back into full view after apparently vanishing over the horizon.
Earth curve playlist:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyHwsN1Rg4IrRn4efSuyOl4AkEmcvrCMo
Here is a good example the media tried to explain away with an atmospheric phenomina known as refraction. Temperature differences over land or water can actually bend light allowing you to see things you shouldn't. However the image it produces should be scattered, warped, and disproportionate; maybe even inverted like some mirages. And refraction had a very limited effect. This is a case of downtown Chicago being viewed from 60 miles away across lake Michigan. The tallest building in Chicago is 1451 ft plus a little more over the lake. The observer, depending on their height of eye which is obviously close to the lake, should have had Chicago obscured by hundreds of feet of earth curve, even the tallest building.
https://youtu.be/SADAiC6DNFg
Verify my claims by simply googling an earth curve calculator online, though I can do these calculations on my own.
Please let me know if you want me to go into more detail for the math behind any of my claims, and appreciate your inquisitiveness.
I actually grew up a believing in God, so you are right many people do have faith while also believing those 3 things. However I came to realize the earth was flat a few years ago, after scoffing at the idea any time I heard it. I was eventually convinced of flat earth for scientific reasons, not biblical reasons. I actually grew up never realizing the Bible describes a flat domed earth. I finally gave flat earth a chance when various Flat earthers made videos that convinced me the moon landing and International space station is fake. I was impressed with their reasoning and proof, so I got curious how they can believe the earth is flat. There are hundreds of reasons why I think the earth is flat but to keep it simple I will give you my top 3:
First I am a Mariner and have often observed objects or landmarks far further than I should with earth curve geometry. There are atmospheric affects that can bend light or create mirage, but the sightings I am referring to are far below the curve of the earth and appear as though you are seeing it on a flat plane. These sightings are best done over water so terrain heights can't interfere. All you need to know is your height of eye, the objects height, and the distance and you can calculate how much curve should block your sight.
2nd, Airplanes set their gyroscopes before they take off so the pilot knows exactly which way down is no matter what maneuvers take place. Gyroscopes are unaffected by gravity, acceleration, deceleration, inertia or any other motion, they maintain their orientation. If you flew from USA to Australia your Gyroscope would tell you the plane is upside down by the time you got around a spherical earth. In addition earth is spinning over 1000 mph at the equator, so that motion would throw the gyro off too. Let's not forget we are orbiting the sun, and the sun is orbiting the milky way (allegedly). Gyroscopes can only work on a flat stationary plane that doesn't move. Also a plane flying 600mph would have to dive 2400 feet every 6 min in order to not fly off into space, according to earth curve geometry. That doesn't make any sense.
Finally Antarctica. If I were able to fly from Buenos Aires Argentina to Perth Australia, the shortest route would be straight over the middle of Antarctica. I picked those cities cause the are prominent and line up well. They are 7840 miles apart, totally doable flight. No one has ever flown across or used Antarctica to circumnavigate because it's impossible. Look up flights in the southern hemisphere, they make zero sense on a sphere, but perfect sense on flat earth. People circumnavigate east to west all the time (they are really doing a circle around the north pole), but no one can do a north south circumnavigation. The Buenos Aires to Perth flight would convince me I'm wrong if we can do it in one flight over Antarctica. I'm not picky though any city from south America to Australia that takes us over Antarctica would do. But it's impossible cause Antarctica is not a pole.
You don’t refute reality / a sound observation!
You merely understand it differently.
In your learned view, the view in this picture is caused by the “curve of the earth” getting in the way of the bottom of the windmills.
In my view, refraction through the standard density gradient (tending to cause light to curve convexly towards the water/ground) is responsible for the effect.
You may be interested in discussing / exploring differing views as well as exchanging your own over on flatearthresearch!
Good question, I'm glad you asked. Below i linked you a Playlist of videos that address that exact topic. Please check it out as the visual aid makes it far more comprehensible. But to state it in my own words, if I were to watch a vessel sail off into the horizon until it vanishes, due to the limits of our vision it will vanish as if it's melting into the horizon. However with the semi recent invention of cameras with high zoom capability while recording, these objects can be brought back into full view after apparently vanishing over the horizon. Earth curve playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyHwsN1Rg4IrRn4efSuyOl4AkEmcvrCMo
Here is a good example the media tried to explain away with an atmospheric phenomina known as refraction. Temperature differences over land or water can actually bend light allowing you to see things you shouldn't. However the image it produces should be scattered, warped, and disproportionate; maybe even inverted like some mirages. And refraction had a very limited effect. This is a case of downtown Chicago being viewed from 60 miles away across lake Michigan. The tallest building in Chicago is 1451 ft plus a little more over the lake. The observer, depending on their height of eye which is obviously close to the lake, should have had Chicago obscured by hundreds of feet of earth curve, even the tallest building. https://youtu.be/SADAiC6DNFg
Verify my claims by simply googling an earth curve calculator online, though I can do these calculations on my own.
Please let me know if you want me to go into more detail for the math behind any of my claims, and appreciate your inquisitiveness.