North - South

[cikljamas]

[aljhoa]

Master @cikljamas,
How Many Degrees in a Circle?


Al

[TheoriaApophasis]

Master @cikljamas,
How Many Degrees in a Circle?


Al

I think he will say 360, but 180 of that is sitting on top of the other 180


so, its still FLAT 180 degrees

[Saros]

Basically, Cikljamas has a point. I admit he might be right. I don't like that he is so stubborn and absolute about it and especially about the details, but it is indeed possible that the Earth is flat(i.e. not a globe) and we have been lied to.

I argued with him on that a lot, but honestly those who deny this possibility vehemently are in denial and don't want to admit that they could have been fooled. Perhaps it has to do with their strong ego, which doesn't allow to be wrong on something so fundamental.

None of the evidence supporting round Earth is observable, testable or demonstrable by ordinary people, so why would you strongly deny that the Earth might in fact be flat? It is more rational to be skeptical since we cannot test it ourselves. After all, it is true that the Earth appears flat, and if we're led by common sense it should be flat indeed and not a globe.

The so-called evidence supporting round Earth is made up so it can fit the already established paradigm of the Copernican universe mode very neatlyl. People think and feel the idea that the Earth is round is more rational and meaningful only because they have been indoctrinated to believe so. People argue that it is not sane to believe the Earth is flat, however, when you think about it is not sane to believe it is round either.

Look at the oceans, for example, are they really stuck in place due to the magic force called gravity. Is it reasonable to believe that water surrounds a ball? How can this be tested in a lab for example? Are there any other examples of when water goes around a sphere without spilling? This is much more absurd than the flat Earth theory which suggests that an ice rim surrounds the disc. I just don't get it why people are not at least skeptical of the Round Earth model.

In fact, the ice wall thing might be reasonable too, especially taking into account the fact that you cannot go to Antarctica and thus the common folks can't really be sure if it is exists in the way they tell us it does. The bases and so on might be there for completely different reasons. Of course, people might like the round shape and even if they don't believe in the current model still think it is round nevertheless. Our friend Wild Heretic(who incidentally believes in Concave Earth) strongly denies flat Earth as a possibility due to his imaginary 'flight times', as if he knows for sure where and how the continents are places on the disc, but suddenly believes 100% the validity of the rectilineator experiment 'proving' the Earth is concave. So, what we see is not enough to convince us the Earth is flat, it can't be? Let's then come up with another more plausible model that the universe is endless and the stars and the Sun are far, far away...the Earth is small etc. OK, it could be true, but where is the proof???

[aljhoa]

Basically, Cikljamas has a point. I admit he might be right. I don't like that he is so stubborn and absolute about it and especially about the details, but it is indeed possible that the Earth is flat(i.e. not a globe) and we have been lied to.

@Saros, are star trails pictures that I posted unbelievable or can be taken by anyone?

Al

[Saros]

@Saros, are star trails pictures that I posted unbelievable or can be taken by anyone?

Al

I don't know about the pictures, but certainly they don't prove a round Earth. Any space observation made from the surface of the planet is not a valid proof of what really happens in space, it is only evidence of what appears to happen viewed from our perspective.

The only way to prove that would be to leave the planet Earth and actually see it from a great distance. However, in my opinion this hasn't be done yet and the photos from space are all fake. One might want to think they are genuine, but definitely it is not guaranteed. In fact, even if we indeed took photos from space that alone shouldn't be considered definite proof it is round even if it appears that way. As I mentioned a long time ago, the whole topic is very abstract as we cannot verify any of the claims.

However, Cikljamas may be right even though his arguments are not always very strong. The idea that the Earth is flat has a long history. Furthermore, it could also be true that some time in the Middle Ages it was deemed necessary to fool the world that the Earth is round for various, mostly religious reasons. This explains all the fakery concerning the matter in question.

[Hrothgar]

Try this

I don't know about the pictures, but certainly they don't prove a round Earth. Any space observation made from the surface of the planet is not a valid proof of what really happens in space, it is only evidence of what appears to happen viewed from our perspective.

Mission SammyOne High Altitude Photography

[TheoriaApophasis]

found a picture of a flathead fish, see , that proves the earth is flat

[cikljamas]

Basically, Cikljamas has a point. I admit he might be right. I don't like that he is so stubborn and absolute about it and especially about the details, but it is indeed possible that the Earth is flat(i.e. not a globe) and we have been lied to.

I argued with him on that a lot, but honestly those who deny this possibility vehemently are in denial and don't want to admit that they could have been fooled. Perhaps it has to do with their strong ego, which doesn't allow to be wrong on something so fundamental.

None of the evidence supporting round Earth is observable, testable or demonstrable by ordinary people, so why would you strongly deny that the Earth might in fact be flat? It is more rational to be skeptical since we cannot test it ourselves. After all, it is true that the Earth appears flat, and if we're led by common sense it should be flat indeed and not a globe.

The so-called evidence supporting round Earth is made up so it can fit the already established paradigm of the Copernican universe mode very neatly. People think and feel the idea that the Earth is round is more rational and meaningful only because they have been indoctrinated to believe so. People argue that it is not sane to believe the Earth is flat, however, when you think about it is not sane to believe it is round either.

Look at the oceans, for example, are they really stuck in place due to the magic force called gravity. Is it reasonable to believe that water surrounds a ball? How can this be tested in a lab for example? Are there any other examples of when water goes around a sphere without spilling? This is much more absurd than the flat Earth theory which suggests that an ice rim surrounds the disc. I just don't get it why people are not at least skeptical of the Round Earth model.

In fact, the ice wall thing might be reasonable too, especially taking into account the fact that you cannot go to Antarctica and thus the common folks can't really be sure if it is exists in the way they tell us it does. The bases and so on might be there for completely different reasons. Of course, people might like the round shape and even if they don't believe in the current model still think it is round nevertheless. Our friend Wild Heretic(who incidentally believes in Concave Earth) strongly denies flat Earth as a possibility due to his imaginary 'flight times', as if he knows for sure where and how the continents are places on the disc, but suddenly believes 100% the validity of the rectilineator experiment 'proving' the Earth is concave. So, what we see is not enough to convince us the Earth is flat, it can't be? Let's then come up with another more plausible model that the universe is endless and the stars and the Sun are far, far away...the Earth is small etc. OK, it could be true, but where is the proof???

One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him--and he was a Samaritan. Jesus asked, "Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?" Then he said to him, "Rise and go; your faith has made you well."

@ Saros, you are a man of integrity, thank you very much for that! Being a man in todays world is so rare attribute, so that you have to be very proud for being a man (it goes for all times, but much more it takes for someone to be a man in contemporary world). A man without integrity isn't a man at all, he may be pig or ostrich but certainly not a man. Unfortunately it's even pointless to warn such a man (who sold his soul to devil) to seize all remaining time to do his best in attempt of becoming a man again.

To comment your nice words there in no better way than to remind us all to these extraordinary words of the remarkable man by the name David Wardlaw Scott :

I shall just add the vigorous testimony of Gothe: "It may be boldly asked where can the man be found,possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton's school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince."

In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."

I could easily cite other good authorities to similar effect, but I think enough have been already given, toshow that the absurdities of Modern Astronomy have not been palmed upon the world without a strong protest from thoughtful minds, and I sincerely trust that the following pages may prove useful to some honest thinkers,not only in exposing the fallacies of this chimerical science, but in showing the true position of the world, as proved by facts in nature, and as unfolded in the Word of God. That Word is the only true exponent which we possess for opening up to us the Wisdom and the Power of God, as displayed in the works of nature, as well as in the still higher revelation of His divine purposes of grace, in bringing at last the whole creation into complete harmony with Himself.

It gives me real pleasure to subjoin, from January, 1893, No. of " The ,Earth (not a Globe) Review," the following extract, written by the late Dr. Woodhouse, formerly Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge:

"When we consider what the advocates of the Earth's stationary and central position can account for, and explain the celestial phenomena as accurately to their own thinking as we can ours, in addition to which they have the evidence of their SENSES and Scripture and facts in their favour, which we have not; it is not without a show of reason that they maintain the superiority of their system. . However perfect our theory may appear in our own estimation, and however simply and satisfactorily the Newtonian hypotheses may seem to us to account for all the celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truth, if our premises be disputed and our facts challenged, the whole range of Astronomy does not contain one proof of its own accuracy."

Saros, i would like to ask you this: Don't you think that Bedford level experiments including many other "level" experiments that have been performed all these years in many different places in the world, make this (FET vs RET) case resolved beyond any reasonable doubt?

What is mind boggling is this: A final result of our quest (finding out whether our world is flat or round) depends on such a simple mathematical and experimental methods which can provide us definitive proof in this matter. Don't you think so?

Yesterday i recalled one of my trips across beautiful croatian coast. At that (which suddenly came across my mind) occasion i visited one of the most southern croatian island (Lastovo). In western part of Lastovo there is one important lighthouse which is built on a beautiful, wild (90 m high) cliff. There i had met one old navigator who have told me that from the top of that cliff when the weather conditions are very favorable you can see car headlights at Italian coast. The distance to the nearest point at italian coast is 70 miles, which (according to RET) means that we should be able to see car headlights at Italian coast (from Lastovo) through 980 meters high hill of water.

How about that?





This one is for those with hell of a lot of smoke in their eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26SQkl-Rp_8

[Saros]

Saros, i would like to ask you this: Don't you think that Bedford level experiments including many other "level" experiments that have been performed all these years in many different places in the world, make this (FET vs RET) case resolved beyond any reasonable doubt?

Here is the thing, I don't think such experiments prove the Earth is flat, especially the flatness of canals could be even due to artificial reasons/factors like levelling the terrain and so on, plus these measurements are done on a very small scale.

However, common sense definitely supports flat Earth. After all, it is hard to imagine oceans hanging on to a globe(for some imaginative people this is quite easy though). I find this very disturbing and in my opinion no force can hold the water in place in such a way. Anywhere on the Earth's surface we know that water flows to a lower region, so how are the oceans and the seas formed and kept in place? If the surface is curved they should flow out as curvature in an essence represents an inclination. It is a known fact that rivers start from mountains or hills and flow into the oceans and the seas and not vice versa. The Earth being a globe is absurd in this respect, it doesn't matter what evidence or photos are presented.

People might think otherwise due to brainwashing and years of indoctrination, but it is much easier to imagine water on a flat surface than on a globe. This is not hard evidence, but I would rather go with that instead of believing suspicious fairy tales presented as facts. The concave Earth model is even funnier, as common sense tells us that water would accumulate in one place and create a huge lake and won't be evenly spread as in oceans and seas and lakes.

But back to your question, physical measurements of the surface might be misleading as certainly there are small parts which are concave, convex and flat, but altogether the Earth is unlikely to be a globe.

It is even less likely to be a globe given the absurdity of the idea that it supposedly spins. This is however crucial for the Copernican model as without spinning the current model just falls apart. Anyone reasonable should ask the question if it spins at 1670 km/h how come we don't feel a thing and the atmospheric fronts and winds are not affected at all? Also, how come when we're above the surface we don't see the surface below us spinning?

I highly doubt that the so-called gravitation explains that even though this is the official scientific explanation. Basically, all the proof for the RE is in outer space where no ordinary humans can ever go. Isn't it too convenient!

So, they want us to believe that when you're 10 km above the surface you're fixed to the Earth's rotation below even though you're moving on your own like when flying by plane, but at 100 km this somehow changes and you can start seeing the Earth move? Why exactly does this happen? Also, how come when you fly in the opposite direction of Earth's rotation it doesn't change your flight time? This is not only suspicious but outrageously obvious to anyone who is not pathetically indoctrinated that we're being completely deceived, and if the Earth doesn't spin, the globular shape goes out of the window too.

[cikljamas]

Here is the thing, I don't think such experiments prove the Earth is flat, especially the flatness of canals could be even due to artificial reasons/factors like levelling the terrain and so on, plus these measurements are done on a very small scale.

However, common sense definitely supports flat Earth. After all, it is hard to imagine oceans hanging on to a globe(for some imaginative people this is quite easy though). I find this very disturbing and in my opinion no force can hold the water in place in such a way. Anywhere on the Earth's surface we know that water flows to a lower region, so how are the oceans and the seas formed and kept in place? If the surface is curved they should flow out as curvature in an essence represents an inclination. It is a known fact that rivers start from mountains or hills and flow into the oceans and the seas and not vice versa. The Earth being a globe is absurd in this respect, it doesn't matter what evidence or photos are presented.

People might think otherwise due to brainwashing and years of indoctrination, but it is much easier to imagine water on a flat surface than on a globe. This is not hard evidence, but I would rather go with that instead of believing suspicious fairy tales presented as facts. The concave Earth model is even funnier, as common sense tells us that water would accumulate in one place and create a huge lake and won't be evenly spread as in oceans and seas and lakes.

But back to your question, physical measurements of the surface might be misleading as certainly there are small parts which are concave, convex and flat, but altogether the Earth is unlikely to be a globe.

It is even less likely to be a globe given the absurdity of the idea that it supposedly spins. This is however crucial for the Copernican model as without spinning the current model just falls apart. Anyone reasonable should ask the question if it spins at 1670 km/h how come we don't feel a thing and the atmospheric fronts and winds are not affected at all? Also, how come when we're above the surface we don't see the surface below us spinning?

I highly doubt that the so-called gravitation explains that even though this is the official scientific explanation. Basically, all the proof for the RE is in outer space where no ordinary humans can ever go. Isn't it too convenient!

So, they want us to believe that when you're 10 km above the surface you're fixed to the Earth's rotation below even though you're moving on your own like when flying by plane, but at 100 km this somehow changes and you can start seeing the Earth move? Why exactly does this happen? Also, how come when you fly in the opposite direction of Earth's rotation it doesn't change your flight time? This is not only suspicious but outrageously obvious to anyone who is not pathetically indoctrinated that we're being completely deceived, and if the Earth doesn't spin, the globular shape goes out of the window too.

If people can buy all that crap (theory of gravitation, theory of Earth's triple motion (rotation, revolution, hurtling around galactic centre) , theory of relativity, theory of rotundity etc.) then they are ready to buy anything that their (slave's) masters decide to sell to them...


I think that you are going to find very convenient to read next few pages:









I would like to emphasise these excerpts from above pages:

The truth is no Astronomer on Earth, nor anybody else, knows one single fact respecting Gravitation, which is an unknown and an unknowable quantity, and the sooner it is committed to the grave of oblivion, the more scope will be given for the advancement of true science.

Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society. He draped his idol with the tawdry tinsel of false science, knowing well how to beguile the thoughtless multitude, for, with a little alteration of Byron's famous lines, it is still true that

"Mortals, like moths, are often caught by glare.
And folly wins success where Seraphs might despair."

Gravitation is a clever illustration of the art of hocus-pocus—heads I win, tails you lose ; Newton won his fame, and the people lost their senses.

Lord Beaconsfield wisely said—" A subject or system that will not bear discussion is doomed." Both Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an " exact science," yea, according to them, " the most exact of all the sciences."

@ Saros, i like this sentence of yours: This is not only suspicious but outrageously obvious to anyone who is not pathetically indoctrinated that we're being completely deceived, and if the Earth doesn't spin, the globular shape goes out of the window too.

Maybe you could extrapolate this bolded part (just a little bit) :smile:

[Saros]

If people can buy all that crap (theory of gravitation, theory of Earth's triple motion (rotation, revolution, hurtling around galactic centre) , theory of relativity, theory of rotundity etc.) then they are ready to buy anything that their (slave's) masters decide to sell to them...

Yeah, thanks a lot. Indeed, the points mentioned in the book are all valid, but apparently people prefer to ignore them. Life is easier that way, I guess...

[TheoriaApophasis]

You forgot one thing son, magnetism gives spherical VOLUME to the entire universe


There is not one FU*****G SINGLE GRAM of matter in the cosmos that has volume save for magnetism



Earth has lots of what us morons call "MATTER" in it. all that mass (=polarized charge in discharge, ie magnetism) HAS SPHERICAL VOLUME

[Ruphus]

The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles.

Wrong its closer to 22 miles.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Ligh...54!2d36.626421

Not that I really care to enter the debate, I just cant stand to see a simple mistake go uncalled.

[Hrothgar]

Sadly but It is true that we could much easier teach the pig how to play violin than to receive acknowledgment from certain kind of people that the obvious facts are indeed the facts.

Haven't we been through all this several times in this thread?

Funny I haven't seen any responses about how satellites stay in the sky.