Ah crap, Earth actually is a spinning ball
(youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
Is it a physical object thousands of miles away from the surface of the earth?
Some people have used trigonometry to estimate its size and distance. I think they came out with 2 or 3 thousand miles high and around 38 miles wide. Biblical cosmology describes the sun/moon/stars as contained within the firmament, not under it. If this is true then I imagine a dome firmament would have a significant effect on the light distribution. It might be like asking me to measure the size and location of a rainbow, which is impossible to do. But the moon does seem to emit its own light which is cold and has a negative charge, while the sun's light is hot and has a positive charge. I believe this is also the true cause of the tides as water (especially salt water) is magnetic.
Here is an interesting clip I found of a scientist claiming the moon is plasma. https://www.bitchute.com/video/6eNy1PpjDEs/
Can you provide anything in the way of proof, other than the fact that it fits with the flat earth theory?
The thing I see flat earthers do all the time is that they seem to work backwards from a flat earth conclusion, and then come up with theories to explain away the discrepancies with observable natural phenomena that would be violated by a flat earth model.
The last time a flat earther explained to me why the moon is occluded by a horizon, and I presented follow up scenarios that contradicted the original explanation, he dropped the bomb on me that he didn't even believe the moon to be a physical object as we know it, so my scenarios were not a valid way to disprove the flat earth model.
And that's pretty telling when you get there, because you find out that these people not only think the earth is flat, but they have also adopted god knows how many other beliefs to make the flat earth model work. And they never tell you those beliefs up front. It's never "hey the earth is flat, and the moon is a 38 mile wide ball of plasma, and the sun is a sphere of golden snakes". It's always "the earth is flat and lol at you for not knowing about the golden snakes, take this bitchute link and go educate yourself".
It feels very disingenuous. Usually when people have a hard-to-swallow theory that they're trying to convince me of, they do their best to explain it carefully and methodically, not by finding the quickest way to "gotcha" me out of the conversation.
I get that these things need to be true to make the flat earth model work. But that doesn't mean they are.
First let me say that I respect the way you are approaching this. You seem to be very rational and intellectually honest. And I think I understand where you are coming from.
I think coming up with Flat Earth explanations for all sorts of phenomenon is the wrong way to go. Let's stick with two of the most fundamental claims that main stream science tells us. The earth is a sphere of 24,901 miles in circumference, and our earth is spinning and orbiting simultaneously. If either of those claims can be dismantled, then your view of cosmology should be reassessed completely.
Also not that I want to make a big deal about it, but I think the burden of proof is on the globies to prove those claims. No human can perceive the motion of the earth with their own senses. We can't even perceive it with the Michelson Morley experiment to measure the speed of light in various directions to prove our motion. And even Steal-the-bike-Tyson admits the earth looks flat from red bull jump altitude. No child would think we live on a spinning globe unless they were programmed to think do.
So if you are genuinely curious, I would focus on the 2 claims I mentioned first, rather than what flat earthers claim for various phenomenon. I'm kinda buzzed at the moment but I'll try to address any follow up you have tomorrow. Cheers!
For all intents and purposes, yes absolutely. The entire field would need to be reassessed. Those two claims are big pillars of the foundation.
I admit I don't really have a good reason to believe it other than being told that it was the truth. But the reason I choose to believe it is because of the amount of stuff that has been built ontop of that foundation over the years. Many inventions and instruments depend so fundamentally on those numbers being accurate. It's like a good track record.
It's similar reasoning to why I refuse the covid vaccine but am ok with other vaccines. Those other vaccines have been tested on people, a lot. There's evidence that they work, even though I can't prove to you (nor myself) that the chemicals they claim are in those vaccine are actually in there. It could be sterilized donkey piss, I wouldn't know.
Same thing for the globe theory. I've seen good evidence, but no proof. Regarding the two claims, I'd sincerely like to hear counter evidence, or theories thereof. I'm open to it. What'chu got?