• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are there any Flat Earth believers here?

Status
Not open for further replies.

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I tend to think many Flat-earthers are simply trolling folks. They try to come up with anyway of convincing folks that the earth is flat. It's like the "unlimited energy" videos on youtube.

You think, how could I go about convincing folks the earth is actually flat and get a kick out of folks trying to prove you are wrong.

I was thinking of a few ways...fly to a destination like from NY to London going via Hong Kong. Then fly back direct...explain how that is possible.

Where does the sun go when it sets?

Why can I call a random person in Australia and they can see different constellations than I can in Los Angeles?

And so on...
 

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
Let me start off by saying:

— the earth is flat.

and...

— the theory of evolution is nothing more than a theory.

1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show
a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flatplane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.

4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.

6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.

7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.

8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.

9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the EarthReview regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this – that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle.”

10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”

12) The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.

13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.

15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute... Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

W3bcrowf3r

Active Member
Let me start off by saying:

— the earth is flat.

— the theory of evolution is nothing more than a theory.

1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show
a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flatplane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.

4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.

6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.

7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.

8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.

9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the EarthReview regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this – that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle.”

10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”

12) The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.

13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.

15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute... Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.[/B]

The earth is a globe. Just like the moon and the sun an all the other planets.

Dont be fooled by the flat earthers. If you claim that NASA and all others are faking their footage. Then why do you believe in flat earth videos and drawings with zero real footage.
 

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
The earth is a globe. Just like the moon and the sun an all the other planets.

Dont be fooled by the flat earthers. If you claim that NASA and all others are faking their footage. Then why do you believe in flat earth videos and drawings with zero real footage.

You just ignored all of the logical, scientific facts in my post, and proceeded to state your unsubstantiated opinion.

People like you are the reason why it’s so easy for the government to pedal nonsense and get away with it.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Wouldn't it be easier to just go to the edge?

Sheesh!

F5ueeqk.jpg
 

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
Earth is a globe. Claiming things doesnt mean they are true.

I could say the exact same thing to you. However, the difference between you and I is the fact that I actually have facts to substantiate my claims.

— If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute... Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You just ignored all of the logical, scientific facts in my post, and proceeded to state your unsubstantiated opinion.

People like you are the reason why it’s so easy for the government to pedal nonsense and get away with it.
Sorry, nonsense is not "logical" and ignorance is not science. The proper way to deal with these claims is one at a time. Can you do that, or are you just pulling out leg.

By the way, thanks for admitting that the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life as we see it and that nothing else does.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I could say the exact same thing to you. However, the difference between you and I is the fact that I actually have facts to substantiate my claims.

— If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute... Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
What makes you think they would need to do that?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
A belief in a Flat Earth is not that different from believing in creationism or the flood myth. All beliefs are based upon a literal reading of the Bible. I ask because the Flat Earth movement is now making even national news:


Warning, it may be a very good idea to put on oven mitts before watching the video.
It's pretty flat here in Florida. You can place a bowling ball on the street and it won't move
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's pretty flat here in Florida. You can place a bowling ball on the street and it won't move
I spent part of a summer where the topographic maps might have one line on them, for a five foot interval. Instead of lines denoting elevation they would have the elevation at the middle of every square mile. Often they would vary by a foot over a mile long distance.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Theory = an idea that has not been proven.

Nope, that is not the definition of a scientific theory.

When has evolution ever been confirmed as fact?

Yes.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

“The story, still sometimes repeated in creationist circles, goes like this: it is the 1960s, at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, and a team of astronomers is using cutting-edge computers to recreate the orbits of the planets, thousands of years in the past. Suddenly, an error message flashes up. There's a problem: way back in history, one whole day appears to be missing.

The scientists are baffled, until a Christian member of the team dimly recalls something and rushes to fetch a Bible. He thumbs through it until he reaches the Book of Joshua, chapter 10, in which Joshua asks God to stop the world for . . . "about a full day!" Uproar in the computer lab. The astronomers have happened upon proof that God controls the universe on a day-to-day basis, that the Bible is literally true, and that by extension the "myth" of creation is, in fact, a reality. Darwin was wrong – according to another creationist rumour, he'd recanted on his deathbed, anyway – and here, at last, is scientific evidence!”

And the story it starts with is fiction. That never happened. It is a lonesome Christian source started. I really do not feel like educating you. You are too ready to believe lies and idiocy.

Can you debate properly? That means covering one point at a time and using reliable sources to do so.
 

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
Nope, that is not the definition of a scientific theory.



Yes.



And the story it starts with is fiction. That never happened. It is a lonesome Christian source started. I really do not feel like educating you. You are too ready to believe lies and idiocy.

Can you debate properly? That means covering one point at a time and using reliable sources to do so.

That’s big talk coming from someone who claims that theories are facts.

I’m still waiting for you to prove that evolution is real.

Basic science proves that evolution is impossible.

Life cannot come from a non-living source.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That’s big talk coming from someone who claims that theories are facts.

Theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution, just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

I’m still waiting for you to prove that evolution is real.

No need. Your inability to I understand won't change anything. I could give you some videos to watch. I am not wasting my time on you.

Basic science proves that evolution is impossible.

Life cannot come from a non-living source.

You do not understand basic science since it does no such thing, and abiogenesis is a related but separate topic. If you watch and try to understand some videos then I will help you. But without even a high school level of science education I will not get into a topic that is not part of this thread.
 

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
Theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution, just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.



No need. Your inability to I understand won't change anything. I could give you some videos to watch. I am not wasting my time on you.



You do not understand basic science since it does no such thing, and abiogenesis is a related but separate topic. If you watch and try to understand some videos then I will help you. But without even a high school level of science education I will not get into a topic that is not part of this thread.

I thought you were a pro debater? Withholding evidence from a discussion because of the assumption that the other person will not understand the information is a new tactic that I have never heard of before. Sounds like a load of BS to me. But hey, at least you tried.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top