North - South

[Saros]

You fail to provide any evidence for your heliocentric dream!

Once again you wrongly assume that if the Earth doesn't spin it must be flat.

There is no reason to believe any of this.

If it is not heliocentric then it is geocentric, but flat Earth is no where to be found in this.

Now I am not claiming the universe is geocentric, but if we assume the Earth doesn't spin, then it would be geocentric. Anyway, even if it is geocentric it doesn't mean it is flat. Do you understand that?

[cikljamas]

Once again you wrongly assume that if the Earth doesn't spin it must be flat.

There is no reason to believe any of this.

If it is not heliocentric then it is geocentric, but flat Earth is no where to be found in this.

Now I am not claiming the universe is geocentric, but if we assume the Earth doesn't spin, then it would be geocentric. Anyway, even if it is geocentric it doesn't mean it is flat. Do you understand that?

Saros, of course i understand that, but i already gave you whole bunch of evidences of that kind, just go back and read again last page (no 6), all Rowbotham's experiments make one giant mountain of proofs in favor of FET!

You asked me if i read your links, how ironic...

Did you see this:










Have you answered to these questions:

1. So, how do we see those towers if the Earth is round?

2. How come horizon is eye leveled even at altitude of 39.045 m (Felix Baumgartner's jump) ???

Secondly, did you see this:



If they wouldn't make any major changes in the geometry of the universe they would have to face insurmountable obstacles like these:

1. Instead of 3219 km/h (alleged speed of Moon's motion in orbit around the Earth) they have to accept preposterous speed of Moon's motion of at least 193 140 km/h!

2. Instead of 10 950 km/s (alleged speed of Earth's motion in orbit around the Sun) they have to accept ultimately preposterous speed of Sun's motion around the Earth of at least 39 420 000 km/h.

How Fast Do Comets Travel?

When Halley's Comet appeared in 1986 the comet's velocity was measured to have a top speed of about 150,000 kilometers per hour. On the comet's closest approach to Earth the speed was 100,000 kilometer per hour.

So, even if the Sun would be at the Moon's distance we would still have to count with much greater speed of motion of the Sun than the comet's velocity is...

NOW, COULD YOU IMAGINE HELL'S FIRE IN THE SKY WHICH SUCH SPEEDING SUN WOULD PRODUCE?

I don't think you could imagine that...

There is one another insurmountable problem with above diagram:

According to above diagram during spring/autumn seasons we would have to have midnight sun in north and south pole simultaneously!

One more final nail in heliocentric coffin:

[Saros]

Saros, of course i understand that, but i already gave you whole bunch of evidences of that kind, just go back and read again last page (no 6), all Rowbotham's experiments make one giant mountain of proofs in favor of FET!

I already told you that the evidence with the eye level horizon is not valid. You're just spamming by posting the same thing over and over again.

Please stop posting pictures and texts, but write a meaningful sentence.

Your horizon at eye level doesn't mean flat Earth, it means nothing.

If the sphere is big enough you would also have horizon at eye level, so please stop repeating lies.

I told you that your model doesn't explain why at the equator twilight is extremely short and at the higher latitudes it can last for hours, why at the poles we have polar night and polar day etc.

If you're not willing to discuss openly and want to just spam, this thread is a waste of time.

EDIT: Regarding the towers, I don't understand your calculations and the numbers you used. If the distance to the towers is 46 miles, we know that the Earth curves approximately 8 inches every mile, so this is 368 inches=934 cm= 9 m 34 cm of curvature. Of course the picture wasn't taken from 0 meters( it looks like 3 meters at least), so that is why you can still see the top of the towers. Case closed! Please pay more attention to details.

[cikljamas]

Your horizon at eye level doesn't mean flat Earth, it means nothing.

If the sphere is big enough you would also have horizon at eye level...

Just how big sphere (Earth) should be so that someone would be able to see horizon at eye level from 40 000 meters altitude?

Impress me with your math skills...

Use this diagram while you do your math:

EDIT: Regarding the towers, I don't understand your calculations and the numbers you used. If the distance to the towers is 46 miles, we know that the Earth curves approximately 8 inches every mile, so this is 368 inches=934 cm= 9 m 34 cm of curvature. Of course the picture wasn't taken from 0 meters( it looks like 3 meters at least), so that is why you can still see the top of the towers. Case closed! Please pay more attention to details.

OMG! :double facepalm: Why don't you just use "horizon calculator" instead of embarrassing yourself like this?

Correct math is shown above, but i could repeat it once again just for you:

46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.

So, between our photographer and our buildings we have 430 m high hill of water (according you rotund guys) , am i right?

The tallest building (second from left) is Willis Tower 1451 ft (442 m) high, and the building number 10 from the left is John Hancock Center 1127 ft (344 m) tall skyscraper.

Conclusion: We could barely see (if the earth were a globe) the top of the Willis Tower (former name Sears Tower) but we could not see the top of the John Hancock center which would be 86 meters below the horizon.

I told you that your model doesn't explain why at the equator twilight is extremely short and at the higher latitudes it can last for hours, why at the poles we have polar night and polar day etc.

After reading next chapter of Rowbotham's "Earth not a globe" you should be content (at least 50 %), in the same chapter you could even find more strict answer to your question if you are ready to ponder on this issue more than your laziness allows you most of time...

CAUSE OF DAY AND NIGHT, WINTER AND SUMMER; AND THE LONG ALTERNATIONS OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS AT THE NORTHERN CENTRE.

... so please stop repeating lies ...

There is nothing, there is no miracle that could save your heliocentric dream, so don't be so desperate to call me a liar... you know very well who is genuine liar, and if you have definitely decided to stick with those genuine liars although you are aware that you can not present any (not one single) argument which could support their (your) lies then you should maybe consider yourself not just as a spammer and as a troll but also as a liar too...

After your persistent rudeness you have left me no choice but to place you into same category where i already placed long time ago your idols - scientists.

[Saros]

Just how big sphere (Earth) should be so that someone would be able to see horizon at eye level from 40 000 meters altitude?

Impress me with your math skills...

OMG! :double facepalm: Why don't you just use "horizon calculator" instead of embarrassing yourself like this?

Your math is wrong. 430 meters of water - this is nonsense. Please review your math, you're clearly mistaken and/or unable to do math. You don't have to raise the distance to the second power! The Earth curves 8 inches per mile, in 46 miles how many inches would it curve? The result is 8 x 46 = 368 in, this is equal to ~ 934 cm, which is 9 meters and 32 cm. Where did you get the 430 meters? I don't care about your calculator if you cannot do math, and you're claiming the towers would be blocked by 430 meters of water if they are only 46 miles away. Do you understand?

By the way, the diagram you're posting is ridiculous. It is not drawn to scale. Draw it to scale and you will visually see how wrong you're. The balloon looks like it is at an altitude of 32 miles based on the diagram scale, when Rowbotham says it is 2 miles. This is 16 times exaggeration of scale. You should know that from 32 miles the visual horizon is at 503 miles not 127 miles. Rowbotham is either intentionally trying to manipulate his readers or simply made a huge mistake.

[cikljamas]

Your math is wrong.

Your logic is wrong, and your math is ridiculous!

430 meters of water - this is nonsense.

Exactly!!! Now, you have to face (finally) with what (nonsense) you believe!

And now some more revelation:

After more careful examining Baumgartners "jump" and his claim (that i noticed yesterday in one of the interviews with him - although nobody asked him about that - he deliberately ejected that "curved" lie from his curved lying mouths on his own!) about "Earth's curvature" i instantly have began to question genuineness of the whole story about his "jump" and the meaning of that story, and there is not much that we could find about that hoax on net, but i have still succeeded to find one interesting video with even much, much more interesting comments below that video:


Red Bull Felix Baumgartner NASA fish eye lens caught faking our reality "Flat Earth" GoPro

Now, let's consider reasonableness of next comments:

shaun heron:
I drive down the motorway at 70mph,stick my arm out of the window and my arm is immediately thrown backwards due to wind resistance and its a struggle to bring my arm forward again. Yet this guy can move his limbs about freely at 600mph+ 5:51 for example.
How?

Sith Lord Palpatine:
How do you open a parachute at 833.9mph? Is it possible for "drag force" to have slowed him down enough for that to function properly?

Edward Nomam:
Maybe no one noticed BUT, the only land mass covering the entire Earth was the USA.. talk about dumbing people down and a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, but there are those who actually believe the USA is the only land mass on Earth, and this faked video further propagates that distorted view.

37rainman:
Its plain sense that the fish eye lens was invented by them evil, insidious Masons, along with them Illuminati, (perhaps aided by the PTA) to do the devils work here on earth!
Please destroy any fish eye lenses you encounter.

DdoubleEE AkaDannyLee:
That Felix Guy is meant to be free falling at 600 miles an hour + yet none of his clothing or lose bits are flapping about which one would expect to see, if he truly is travelling at that speed that is!.

Artur Orłowski:
this is a lie. 3D graphic programs + bluescreen + some real things like pulling parachute. he didn't jump


theDracoIX
One of the biggest giveaways is that the balloon never spins even though you can see it rocking from side to side. At that height, there is barely anything resisting it, even after he jumps the balloon is not spinning, you can see from the camera on it, something is holding it in place.

I really cannot believe that couldn't have made the other video look more realistic than this - I mean, this almost looks like a parody video it's so cartoonish and fake.

greg b:
nasa always use fish eye lense to fake the sheep. the horizon was flat when the hatch opens wonder why. --- Well, that was my thought up until yesterday too, but now we have to ask ourself had he jumped at all...

[Saros]

Your logic is wrong, and your math is ridiculous!

OMG, are you for real? Perhaps you're just pretending? How is my math wrong? Earth curves 8 inches per mile, you can check this information on the net, if you don't believe me. I am starting to think you lack logic whatsoever, that is why you don't understand what I am saying. You wrote some total nonsense that if an object is 46 miles away it will be blocked by 430 meters of water, and I am lacking logic? Dude, think twice before you write stuff like this please.

EDIT: Curvature of the Earth

Suppose that the earth is a sphere of radius 3963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangel as in the diagram. Using the theorem of Pythagoras a2 = 39632 + 12 = 15705370 and thus a = 3963.000126 miles. Thus your position is 3963.000126 - 3963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth. 0.000126 miles = 12*5280*0.000126 = 7.98 inches. Hence the earth's surface curves at approximately 8 inches per mile.

So, sorry, but no, there is no 430 meters of water blocking Willis tower if it is observed from 46 miles away. If you don't correct yourself and retract that nonsense, I would know you're a troll and just want to waste my time.

[cikljamas]

So, sorry, but no, there is no 430 meters of water blocking Willis tower if it is observed from 46 miles away. If you don't correct yourself and retract that nonsense, I would know you're a troll and just want to waste my time.

Who waste who's time is going to be obvious right now:









One more thing: you are the first guy that i have ever met until now who doubt correctness of "Rowbotham's" math, and believe me, Rowbotham was too serious, too intelligent, and enough educated man and very dedicated (to his sacred mission) to be reasonably (for any reasonable person) to suspect his math at all (in the first place). But, guys like you are just preposterous..., and on top of that you even try to ridicule Rowbotham on the basis of the fact that he lived in 19th century??? And, you and your math are advanced???

Time for retraction!

[Saros]

Who waste who's time is going to be obvious right now:


One more thing: you are the first guy that i have ever met until now who doubt correctness of "Rowbotham's" math, and believe me, Rowbotham was too serious, too intelligent, and enough educated man and very dedicated (to his sacred mission) to be reasonably (for any reasonable person) to suspect his math at all (in the first place). But, guys like you are just preposterous..., and on top of that you even try to ridicule Rowbotham on the basis of the fact that he lived in 19th century??? And, you and your math are advanced???

Time for retraction!

You're quoting Karol's concave Earth stuff to prove flat Earth. Quite original! The horizon calculator works, but your logic is wrong. I am also right when I say the Earth curves 8 inches per mile. However, the visibility range uses a different formula. Regarding the towers, you don't see the whole building in the photo, and the photo wasn't taken from the sea level, but as it seems from at least 3 meters above it, so that is why you can see them. It is a huge difference, the horizon range depends on your altitude as well. Anyway, the calculator always matches reality, and Karol's and your interpretations don't make any sense. Flat Earth can't be true if you obviously see stuff irreversibly disappearing. Law of perspective, no! Get a telescope and try to see a tower 500 km away, you can't! You can't because the Earth is not flat. I don't want to start again with the Sun and the twilight contradiction, because you wouldn't care anyway.

By the way, you're the first person to seriously question stuff which is already proven by science. No one doubts the calculations are wrong but you. Please raise these questions to the authorities. I cannot argue on their behalf. Seriously go ask a scientist the same questions.

Also Rowbotham might have been good at math, but definitely didn't know how to draw diagrams to scale or didn't want to! As with the fig 29 you posted earlier with the balloon and the 127 miles distance horizon. Apparent attempt to manipulate. He drew the diagram in such a way as if the balloon was 1/4 of the distance, i.e. 127 miles. When in fact he wanted it to be at 2 miles altitude. What is this if not manipulation. By the way, Rowbotham was ridiculed even by his contemporaries in the 19th century, so don't pretend he was some sort of genius for his time, he wasn't, and even the 19th century people knew he was wrong and didn't believe him for a minute. He was just an ordinary man just like you, who thought he was smarter than anyone else, and thus showed huge arrogance. Fortunately, he wasn't the only one who knows math, and obviously his work was completely discredited. You're very similar. Just wasting your time, because no one would ever believe seriously in the nonsense you spread. Same goes for Wild Heretic. All these alternative ideas remain alternative forever, because the people who are defending them lack any credibility and common sense very often. You guys assume that the whole world is a big lie, but you're smarter than everyone else and you know better, you can see the truth. Well, if you're so smart I guess you should be a millionaire, and should have enough resources to advertise your theories on TV, and convince people at public debates.

EDIT:
I forgot to add that the so-called interpretation of the formula by the Polish troll Karol is not only nonsense, but meaningless. I haven't seen any case of something observed from a longer distance than what the calculator shows. Why is that? Simple, the calculator is correct, you don't subtract the heights, this guy is a troll. There are some times when due to light refraction you can see a bit more, but not that much more. You will never see a tower from 500 km away if you're at the sea level, which is a total proof the Earth is not flat. If you don't get it yet, I told you, start a public debate with the scientists, but obviously you're afraid to present yourself in public, because you don't want to be ridiculed for your ignorance.

[cikljamas]

The horizon calculator works, but... your logic is wrong... Regarding the towers, you don't see the whole building in the photo, and the photo wasn't taken from the sea level, but as it seems from at least 3 meters above it, so that is why you can see them. It is a huge difference...

EDIT:
Simple, the calculator is correct...

Simple, you don't know what you talk...your logic is terribly wrong, your reasoning is totally confused, your words are pathetic and your heliocentric nonsense is preposterous...

Heliocentrists are not just liars, they are cowards too, just one example:

Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."

Bernard Cohen in Birth of a New Physics, 1960, concurs: "There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun."

****************************************

Now, about the towers:



Let's make the same calculation as above:

46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.

So, between our photographer and our buildings we have 430 m high hill of water (according you rotund guys) , am i right?

The tallest building (second from left) is Willis Tower 1451 ft (442 m) high, and the building number 10 from the left is John Hancock Center 1127 ft (344 m) tall skyscraper.

EDIT: Now, allowing you correction of 3 m we get this result :



Since the second highest building in the picture is building number 10 from the left John Hancock Cente which is 1127 ft (344 m) tall skyscraper, you still couldn't see (if the Earth was round) anything except the antenna on the top of Willis Tower...

So, your huge difference is come down to 370 meters instead of 430 meters!!!

All that is left for you is to be absolutely ashamed if you have at least a bit honesty in yourself...

[Saros]

Simple, you don't know what you talk...your logic is terribly wrong, your reasoning is totally confused, your words are pathetic and your heliocentric nonsense is preposterous...

Heliocentrists are not just liars, they are cowards too, just one example:



Since the second highest building in the picture is building number 10 from the left John Hancock Cente which is 1127 ft (344 m) tall skyscraper, you still can't see anything except the antenna on the top of Willis Tower...

So, your huge difference is come down to 370 meters instead of 430 meters!!!

All that is left for you is to be absolutely ashamed if you have at least a bit honesty in yourself...

Hahaha, you're funny, you want me to feel ashamed of your lying and exaggerating and interpreting stuff your way just to fit your theory? Are you saying that the whole world is dumb and you're right? You can't even make a calculator software like the one you're using, but you think you know better how to calculate the horizon than the people who designed the calculator or any scientist for that matter.I have never seen so much arrogance in one place, it is just funny. The reason why you can't be right is Occam's razor. What is more likely - 99.9% of the world is wrong, and you're right or the opposite?

Actually, I feel naive to even assume that the picture is perfectly genuine and arguing with you about it. You haven't provided any reliable information about it. I even had to assume the altitude of the camera to be 3 meters. For the sake of argument, I assume it is genuine. By the way, even as it is, it is consistent with the calculator results. The towers are 46 miles away, and you can see them from 3 meters above the water. The horizon is at 74 km which is 46 miles. I don't see any problem with the calculator results and the reality.
I never got what your problem with this actually is. Now I know why no one more knowledgeable comes here to argue with you. You will call them liars and you won't listen anyway. I am not an expert, but even I can see how much you misinterpret the facts in your favor. So what exactly are you saying? What is wrong? The calculator is wrong? I don't understand you? Obviously the calculator is based on science, not on magic. How come it produces data that matches the observations so well? Oh, and you never answered why you can't see the towers from 500 km using a powerful telescope if the Earth is flat.

[cikljamas]

According to Saros false logic: had Mikolaj Kopernik been aware of "Occam razor" "=" "99,9 %" "argument" we would have taught geocentrism in schools through centuries all the way to the present day...

In "De Labore Solis" Walter van der Kamp exposes Einstein’s fallacies quite handily. For those wanting to explore this more thoroughly, you are referred to pp39-51 of that remarkable work. Einstein’s theories do not disprove geocentrism. At the end of a letter in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 54, Charles Long, Ph.D. of Minnesota, cogently explains the lack of definitives:

. . .Einstein is the fellow who went on to compose the General Theory of Relativity. The basis of this theory is that all motion is relative! Einstein wrote his equations describing how the Universe works. If the Earth spins and the stars are at rest – the equations explain all observations. But if the Earth is at rest and stars whirl – the equations still explain all observations. They must, for the theory begins with the assumption that all motion is relative. You can’t say positively that anything is at rest. Take your choice – the equations of General Relativity come out the same. Einstein put Mach’s (Principle) into mathematical form and what emerged is surely one of the ultimate creations of the human mind.

Like Galileo, Newton the alchemist, and many others who support godless science, Einstein proved nothing. Even the atheistic philosopher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), correctly asserts: "Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation."

[Saros]

According to Saros false logic: had Mikolaj Kopernik been aware of "Occam razor" "=" "99,9 %" "argument" we would have taught geocentrism in schools through centuries all the way to the present day...

In "De Labore Solis" Walter van der Kamp exposes Einstein’s fallacies quite handily. For those wanting to explore this more thoroughly, you are referred to pp39-51 of that remarkable work. Einstein’s theories do not disprove geocentrism. At the end of a letter in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 54, Charles Long, Ph.D. of Minnesota, cogently explains the lack of definitives:

. . .Einstein is the fellow who went on to compose the General Theory of Relativity. The basis of this theory is that all motion is relative! Einstein wrote his equations describing how the Universe works. If the Earth spins and the stars are at rest – the equations explain all observations. But if the Earth is at rest and stars whirl – the equations still explain all observations. They must, for the theory begins with the assumption that all motion is relative. You can’t say positively that anything is at rest. Take your choice – the equations of General Relativity come out the same. Einstein put Mach’s (Principle) into mathematical form and what emerged is surely one of the ultimate creations of the human mind.

Like Galileo, Newton the alchemist, and many others who support godless science, Einstein proved nothing. Even the atheistic philosopher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), correctly asserts: "Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation."

Please answer my questions, don't change the subject. It is not false logic. It is called common sense.

Question 1:
Why can't you see towers 500 meters high from 500 km away with a powerful telescope?

Question 2: Why is twilight much shorter at the equator than at higher latitudes?

Question 3: Why do we have a polar day and a polar night at the poles if the Sun is travelling over a flat surface and the North Pole is in the middle of a round disc?

Question 4: Why is the Moon seen upside down below the equator if the Earth is not a sphere?

Question 5: Why hasn't anyone been at the ice rim and we don't have any photos of it if the Earth is flat?

Question 6: Why does the Foucault pendulum demonstrate the Earth's rotation if the Earth is flat and doesn't spin?

Question 7: How is it possible that all people involved in space research are lying?

Question 8: How come the horizon calculator matches what we observe in real life?

Question 9: Can you create a calculator which uses flat Earth data and produces correct results?

Question 10: Can you predict solar eclipses, lunar eclipses etc, using only the Flat Earth model?

Question 11: How about the Coriolis effect ?

Question 12: Why don't you invite some scientists to a public debate concerning the issue?

Question 13: Why are you anonymous if this is indeed your real belief?

Question 14: What is the mass of the Earth?

Question 15: How big are the Sun and the Moon?

Question 16: Where do the comets and asteroids come from?

Question 17: What is beyond the so-called ice rim?

Question 18: Why are the other celestial bodies spheres if the Earth is flat?

Question 19: Why no serious scientists nowadays ever consider the possibility that the Earth is flat?

[cikljamas]

Saros, instead of puting same questions all over again why wouldn't you just go back to the first page of this thread and start to read it for the first time from the beginning?

The Flat Earth Debate Continues



The foremost human authority on this issue is, of course, St. Robert Bellarmine, who knew the perilous consequences of Galileo’s heresy. The following letter of April 12, 1613 was written to an involved party, Fr. Paolo Foscarini, and it decisively and prophetically cautions the 16th century world about the dangers of heliocentrism. The following should indicate why Pope Clement VIII rejoiced that "the Church of God had not his equal in learning." Bellarmine to Foscarini:

I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scripture false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words "the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc" were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

I salute Your Reverend and ask God to grant you every happiness.

Are not the words of this great Church doctor and saint eloquent, insightful, profound? Is there any Catholic among us who can find a flaw in it?

Flat Earth Response Video To Everyone its so flat

Saros, enjoy wathing videos...

[Saros]

Saros, instead of puting same questions all over again why wouldn't you just go back to the first page of this thread and start to read it for the first time from the beginning?

The Flat Earth Debate Continues

Because you haven't answered any of my questions sufficiently.


I was checking the comments under some YT videos on Flat Earth, and I especially liked the following one:

Pat Doyle 4 months ago

+fakeclouds insky
Here are a few little brain teasers for you genius:

Why does the not sun not set for weeks and even months on end in summer in the high latitudes? How can it be light 24/7 in northern Canada and Alaska, while it is dark here in Michigan?

Why can't you see Polaris from the southern hemisphere, or the Southern Cross from the north?
How can celestial navigation (based on spherical geometry & trigonometry) work on a flat Earth?

Why is it that in the days of antenna TV, I could get a weak station out of Kalamazoo (40 mi. away) but could not pick up one of the world's most powerful stations out of Chicago (90 mi. away) until the antenna was moutned on a 90 ft tower?

Why is it dark here, and broad daylight in Hawaii and California?

How come a submarine heading due south (directly away from the center of your flat Earth) from San Diego, and another heading south from Holy Loch Scotland could rendezvous near Cape Horn?

Gee, an spheroid Earth explains all these quite nicely, but your flat Earth can't.

I think I cannot add anything to that. The questions are extremely revealing, and one must be painfully mulish to not ever doubt his own beliefs. I guess there are people like that...

So, unless you provide some meaningful answers to my questions, I consider the discussion finished.