Global warming might not be human induced

[Lamb]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html

There are articles from 2007 that indicate that other planets in our solar system are also warming...so humans might not be to blamed completely.

 

[Stravinsk]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html

There are articles from 2007 that indicate that other planets in our solar system are also warming...so humans might not be to blamed completely.

The articles may indicate that, but they rely on bogus data from NASA.

There are no planets. NASA "photos" are frauds - the things we call planets are wandering stars. Doubt me? Look up "Nikon p900 stars" in Google. Funny that - all the amateur photo/filmography shows images not even remotely like NASA images.

If there *were* planets - just a little bit of thinking would tell a person that - if the places on the Earth that experience the coldest winters, are due, in large part, to the distance from the sun at that time of year - then how could Mars be anything but a frozen "planet"? - being as it's so much further away from the Sun than those frozen over places on earth? - and not just during "ice ages" as one of the articles states - but all the time?

 

[Lamb]

Strav, just because your examples prove that some people don't know how to correctly use their equipment it does not back up your claim.

Here are some pages for you to review:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/planetary-imaging-with-your-dslr-camera/
https://books.google.com/books?id=N...nepage&q=planets from ordinary camera&f=false

http://soggyastronomer.com/how-to-photograph-the-gas-giants-jupiter-and-saturn/
https://www.rocketstem.org/2014/10/15/beginner-guide-to-planetary-imaging/
https://petapixel.com/2014/12/01/photograph-jupiter-backyard-cheap/
https://starizona.com/acb/ccd/advimagingplanet.aspx
https://www.awesomeastronomy.com/tu...o-photograph-the-moon-planets-with-your-phone
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3722754


As you can see, normal people can shoot great photos of the planets. They exist! And they're globes too. Imagine that.

 

[Stravinsk]

Strav, just because your examples prove that some people don't know how to correctly use their equipment it does not back up your claim.

LOL! I actually didn't link any specific examples - just had people search for one of the currently best cameras out there with a very long zoom that shows that the images provided by NASA aren't comparable on multiple levels. The stars aren't "suns" and the "planets" do not look the same. As for "correctly using equiptment" - I imagine it's point and zoom - focus being automatically taken care of as with most modern equipment? As for the implication of being "too dumb to understand how to work basic equipment" - please, spare us the gross mischaracterization you learned from television and government programming.

Btw - one doesn't even need to have any special equipment at all to know that when you look into the night sky and see a twinkling star - this is not a distant sun. Our sun doesn't behave that way - flashing rapidly between immense and lower level light.

You know what else you don't need special equipment to see? Lack of parallax. The stars move at the same rate across the sky. If they varied in distance, then we would see that in how fast the appeared to move relative to our position - just as when one is in a moving vehicle one sees closer things appear to move very fast compared to things in the distance. But you don't see that in the stars - which means they are all at the same distance? No wait - they are all *too far away* so that the difference isn't visible, right? That's a convenient argument that just doesn't take into account the fact that our eyes cannot see that far.

Here are some pages for you to review:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/planetary-imaging-with-your-dslr-camera/
https://books.google.com/books?id=N...nepage&q=planets from ordinary camera&f=false

http://soggyastronomer.com/how-to-photograph-the-gas-giants-jupiter-and-saturn/
https://www.rocketstem.org/2014/10/15/beginner-guide-to-planetary-imaging/
https://petapixel.com/2014/12/01/photograph-jupiter-backyard-cheap/
https://starizona.com/acb/ccd/advimagingplanet.aspx
https://www.awesomeastronomy.com/tu...o-photograph-the-moon-planets-with-your-phone
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3722754


As you can see, normal people can shoot great photos of the planets. They exist! And they're globes too. Imagine that.

They aren't terra firma - they are stars. And Lam - I noticed you conveniently dodged my question about temperature. Globe believers will steadfastly hold to the tilt of the globe accounting for our seasons as earth travels around the sun - that sun being further away from the coldest parts during winter, and closer during summer accounting for greater heat. Those same people also have their heads filled with hollywood bs that tells them stories of going to mars...and NASA bs that says they've sent equipment there (which, just happens to be coincidentally timed, btw). So how does the proximity of the sun cause Earth's coldest temperatures but somehow allow for there to be life on Mars which is much further away from it?

Of the sites reviewed (I admit I didn't look at all of them yet) - they are only stills, and could have easily been manipulated for website hits. Some of the stills (for instance, of Saturn) don't look like NASA photos except in basic shape.

Here's a quote from the rocketstem.org page you listed:

Again a commercial planetary camera will come with processing software, but it will mainly be the same freeware or shareware software that you can download from the Internet. The most popular processing application is called Registax (http://www.astronomie.be/registax/). This analises the video, determines which are the good images on them, aligns them, and stacks them all into a single image. There are then some post processing options that can be applied to the image to bring out the detail.

With my "processing software" I don't even need a camera, Lam. This is how CGI can make things seem real when they aren't. In fact, I could take any picture, feed it into my super powered processing software, and come out with any pic I desired after it was processed.

Why do these "astronomers" need processing software? If their cams/telescopes can give us a good raw pic why isn't this good enough to show everyone? Oh wait - I already know...because they don't match up with the CGI pics NASA been feeding us for decades...so they have to be "corrected" right?


Lam, one more thing, since this is a Christian site and all Christians are (at least nominally) believers in the bible:

According to Genesis - all the heavenly bodies of light were created specifically to give light to the earth. Genesis 1:14-17. That's right - all those "super distant stars" you believe are suns with their own planets and so forth - Genesis says they were ALL created to give light on the earth. If you don't believe that, then don't bother to quote Genesis on any subject, including the fall of man or the need for a savior - because if it's not believable for the former, then there's no reason it should be believable for the latter.

And since you are a Lutheran:

Luther called Copernicus an "upstart astronomer" who wanted to turn the creation account on it's head with his theories:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."



So, the bible disagrees with you.
Luther disagrees with you.
Real photography and filmography that doesn't need to be "processed" disagrees with you.

All you have left is the government lies you were told, the hollywood crap that entertains, and certifiably bogus NASA pics and animations.

 

[tango]

Can we keep the flat earth talk to the flat earth threads? Exploring the theory is all well and good but it is a little tiresome when it starts taking over yet another thread.

On the topic of global warming, I've been skeptical about it being man-made for years. Quite aside from the issue of whether or not other planets are experiencing global warming, if carbon emissions really did represent an existential level threat to humanity I'd have thought governments could come up with a solution that didn't begin with "introduce a new tax on..."

When the great and the good travel (first class, obviously) with an army of hangers-on to an exotic location to discuss ways to force the likes of you and I to turn our heating down a degree it does make me wonder why anyone buys it. And when the high priests of the new religion don't seem averse to flying first class and using private jets to get around it becomes clear they don't care about carbon emissions. I remember a few years back hearing something about John Kerry saying how we might have to learn to live without air conditioning to save the planet. Thankfully he led by example and turned off the air conditioning in the House of Representatives. Oh, wait, I don't think he actually did that, it's just the little people who have to sweat through the summer.

With the claims of sea levels rising and causing death by starvation to untold billions of people, anyone who preaches a message of global warming yet doesn't live like the Amish is really hard to take seriously. You know, it's so critically important to cut carbon emissions but they'll still drive to work and they'll still turn the air conditioning on when it gets warm.

 

[Stravinsk]

Can we keep the flat earth talk to the flat earth threads? Exploring the theory is all well and good but it is a little tiresome when it starts taking over yet another thread.

The OP references beliefs that are taken for granted to make a point. Thus, they are part of the OP and addressing them isn't off topic. Addressing the topic without questioning the underpinnings on which it lies by default takes for granted those underpinnings are correct. There's no need to force that.

On the topic of global warming, I've been skeptical about it being man-made for years. Quite aside from the issue of whether or not other planets are experiencing global warming, if carbon emissions really did represent an existential level threat to humanity I'd have thought governments could come up with a solution that didn't begin with "introduce a new tax on..."

Agreed. Unfortunately I don't have a quote ready, or else I'd quote it - but the global warming idea (as a scam) has been around for a while before it became popular - precisely for the reason you infer. Feed the people more bullstuff to scam them into paying for more bogus programs and keeping very rich people very rich. All for the greater good of protecting us all, of course.

When the great and the good travel (first class, obviously) with an army of hangers-on to an exotic location to discuss ways to force the likes of you and I to turn our heating down a degree it does make me wonder why anyone buys it. And when the high priests of the new religion don't seem averse to flying first class and using private jets to get around it becomes clear they don't care about carbon emissions. I remember a few years back hearing something about John Kerry saying how we might have to learn to live without air conditioning to save the planet. Thankfully he led by example and turned off the air conditioning in the House of Representatives. Oh, wait, I don't think he actually did that, it's just the little people who have to sweat through the summer.

Unfortunately many people believe it because they are sucked into herd think, can't be bothered to think critically on these things, and often are big fans of popular entertainment that pushes agendas in various ways. I sometimes wince when I hear some quote from a hollywood movie that someone is using as their argument. As if that isn't bad enough - I actually have a friend who once quoted an idea as being true simply because "I saw it with my own eyes on television". One cannot argue with this. On these subjects, these people have willingly handed over their critical facilities to be dumbed down in exchange for being entertained by the idiot box.

On the other side is the "scientific arguments". That sounds smart and everything - except when financial bias is factored in. If it be found that "global warming" isn't happening like they say it is, or to the degree that they say it is - this seems like a good reason to stop funding research. If on the other hand, it is happening and there always needs to be continual research then the gravy train of endless research and speculation can continue for years and years. If one is a scientist with no other income...which view do you think they'll promote?

Sort of like colonizing the moon, or mars. Push it back another 20 years, and give us more sci-fi movies. We'll get there...*eventually*. Just keep the funds rolling in.

With the claims of sea levels rising and causing death by starvation to untold billions of people, anyone who preaches a message of global warming yet doesn't live like the Amish is really hard to take seriously. You know, it's so critically important to cut carbon emissions but they'll still drive to work and they'll still turn the air conditioning on when it gets warm.

Lol. Well said.

 

[tango]

The OP references beliefs that are taken for granted to make a point. Thus, they are part of the OP and addressing them isn't off topic. Addressing the topic without questioning the underpinnings on which it lies by default takes for granted those underpinnings are correct. There's no need to force that.

You make a fair point, I just think it would be more productive to merely note the disagreement rather than getting into another discussion on whether NASA photos are to be believed. As we've got here, there's more to discuss on the merits or otherwise of the issue of global warming regardless of what's happening on other planets, or even whether those other planets exist. Whether or not Mars exists in the way we've been told isn't relevant to the observation that the people with the highest profile who make the most noise about global warming seem to also be the ones who have a carbon footprint bigger than most of us could achieve if we tried.

Agreed. Unfortunately I don't have a quote ready, or else I'd quote it - but the global warming idea (as a scam) has been around for a while before it became popular - precisely for the reason you infer. Feed the people more bullstuff to scam them into paying for more bogus programs and keeping very rich people very rich. All for the greater good of protecting us all, of course.

It seems like just another place where things can be figured out with the simply motto, "follow the money". The thing I find quite funny is that I tend to be more environmentally aware in general than an awful lot of the people I know who believe in the whole carbon emissions thing. I read a fairly long study only recently (can't find what happened to the bookmark, it might be on my other computer) that looked at how data had been adjusted here and manipulated there, and essentially showed with a significant level of confidence that global warming is man-made. Man-made in the sense that if man fiddles the figures they show that the earth is warming. If the figures are left unmolested they show something far less concerning.

Unfortunately many people believe it because they are sucked into herd think, can't be bothered to think critically on these things, and often are big fans of popular entertainment that pushes agendas in various ways. I sometimes wince when I hear some quote from a hollywood movie that someone is using as their argument. As if that isn't bad enough - I actually have a friend who once quoted an idea as being true simply because "I saw it with my own eyes on television". One cannot argue with this. On these subjects, these people have willingly handed over their critical facilities to be dumbed down in exchange for being entertained by the idiot box.

Another part of the problem is the way contemporary language shifts to shut down rational discussion. If you question global warming you're a "denier", obviously in the pockets of the oil companies and believing everything Fox News has to say about everything. You're probably the sort of person who would sell your grandmother for dog meat as long as it didn't mean having to look after her in her old age. And the masses endlessly recite the mantra that "the science is settled", and so it goes.

On the other side is the "scientific arguments". That sounds smart and everything - except when financial bias is factored in. If it be found that "global warming" isn't happening like they say it is, or to the degree that they say it is - this seems like a good reason to stop funding research. If on the other hand, it is happening and there always needs to be continual research then the gravy train of endless research and speculation can continue for years and years. If one is a scientist with no other income...which view do you think they'll promote?

When enough people with enough influence believe in man-made global warming and control things like research grants it would take a very brave scientist to step up and look for funding to question the very premise of the new global religion.

Sort of like colonizing the moon, or mars. Push it back another 20 years, and give us more sci-fi movies. We'll get there...*eventually*. Just keep the funds rolling in.

Yep... few people voluntarily get off the gravy train once they've got a ticket.

 

[Josiah]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html

There are articles from 2007 that indicate that other planets in our solar system are also warming...so humans might not be to blamed completely.

I have hesitate to get involved in this thread...... partly because I have NO expertise in this area of science (and have a firm policy of not proving my ignorance; as one with a Ph.D. in an area of science, it bugs the ____ out of me when people who don't know what the _____ they are talking about it insist on proving that; and try to not be one of them), and partly because it is my policy not to discuss science in non-science forums among non-scientists.


But I think, purely as a laymen, it is obvious the planet is warming..... fast. Because the human lifespan is SO short compared to geological "time," we naturally tend to think everything always was, is and will be just as WE now experience it. But the reality is: weather is constantly changing. In a few thousand years, the ice age will peak again - with ice a mile thick in New York City..... in a few million years, it will be so hot that all the water will evaporate and the whole planet will become one bone-dry desert..... in a few billion years, the Earth will FRY as the sun comes to greet us. Turn the clock back and at one time, the whole planet was covered with ice - right to the equator. Things change. And (I realize this hurts our ego), it doesn't all depend on MAN.

IMO, that's where the controversy and debate lies: How much of the global warming is due to humans and human activity? IMO, it's likely not zero: humans in the past 200 years have become SO numerous and SO technological that we have left our mark everywhere; it seems to me, as a laymen, it's impossible that all this ENORMOUS impact as no consequence on the planet - including our extremely thin atmosphere. But how much of the "blame" lies with human activity? And how much can we do to change this (especially now)? THAT, it seems to this laymen, is the controversy. And I cannot and thus will not pretend to theorize some "answer." BUT, I am a bit of a "greeny" and I do think we need to be a LOT more responsible for how we care for this planet which does NOT belong to us and to which God Himself holds us responsible for.


I'll say this, too. As one who is a professional scientist. Society STILL tends to hold science up in some esteem (not as bad as in late 19th and early to mid 20th century) almost as if science is a religion and scientists some kind of holy clergy. Yes, Science promotes objectivity and accountability. Yes, your high school science teacher TOLD you that science must be provable and that scientist assume nothing and love to be proven wrong. He lied. Oh, I could say SO much (but this isn't the proper forum or community for that). Just like churches and theologians aren't always PURE, holy, humble servants of God's Truth, well..... But that needs to be balance by a laity that appoints self as smarter than those who study such things; I reminded of SO many "flat earth" folks LONG after Magellian sailed around the world, I remember all those who insist that Moon landing never happened but that aliens crashed at Roswell. There are people (laity and otherwise) who simply choose to HOLD to something as Dogma in the face of the obvious (you'd need to ask Dr. Phil for the reason for that; I won't pretend to theorize).


Sorry.


- Josiah

 

[tango]

IMO, that's where the controversy and debate lies: How much of the global warming is due to humans and human activity? IMO, it's likely not zero: humans in the past 200 years have become SO numerous and SO technological that we have left our mark everywhere; it seems to me, as a laymen, it's impossible that all this ENORMOUS impact as no consequence on the planet - including our extremely thin atmosphere. But how much of the "blame" lies with human activity? And how much can we do to change this (especially now)? THAT, it seems to this laymen, is the controversy. And I cannot and thus will not pretend to theorize some "answer." BUT, I am a bit of a "greeny" and I do think we need to be a LOT more responsible for how we care for this planet which does NOT belong to us and to which God Himself holds us responsible for.

I agree entirely that we need to be good stewards of the planet. To me that doesn't mean the little people (the likes of you and I) religiously running every little thing out to the recycling plant and sweating in the summer to save a bit of electricity powering the air conditioner while those appointed to lead swan around in the lap of luxury, avoiding the very restrictions they seek to impose on everybody else.

I think also it's important to consider the overall environmental impact of something rather than letting single issues dominate the day. Yes, recycling can be a good thing but why stop there? Isn't it better to reuse things as far as possible rather than simply patting ourselves on the back for recycling? I remember back in the day when a bottle of pop had a deposit on it, where you'd pay one price for the pop and a deposit for the bottle. When you took the bottle back you got the deposit back (it was typically used as the deposit for the next bottle). It worked - bottles were cleaned and refilled rather than broken up and recycled into new bottles. It also provided a bit of extra cash for anyone inclined to gather up unwanted bottles, and you didn't see bottles thrown in ditches. Even if it was just the local down-and-out who gathered them up to earn a little extra cash, they just weren't a problem.

The single-issue point also irritates me intensely when it comes to recycling. I previously lived in an area where just about everything was recycled, but jars had to be cleaned out. So if you've got an empty mayonnaise jar you're expected to wash it thoroughly before putting it out. Which is all well and good, but how much water does it take to wash out a mayonnaise jar? That's water that has been purified to the point it's clean enough to drink, being used to wash old mayonnaise out of a jar. What's the environmental impact of using a limited resource (clean drinking water) to avoid wasting another resource (the empty jar)? Given the jar is going to get smashed into pieces at the recycling plant it almost makes more sense to just leave the lid on to contain smells and any issues with mold/bacteria/insects and let the recycling plant clean everything with unpurified water between breaking it all up and melting it. And that's before you get the people who drive to a recycling center and spend half an hour with their engine running as they wait in line to drop off a bag of bottles or some such.

I'll say this, too. As one who is a professional scientist. Society STILL tends to hold science up in some esteem (not as bad as in late 19th and early to mid 20th century) almost as if science is a religion and scientists some kind of holy clergy. Yes, Science promotes objectivity and accountability. Yes, your high school science teacher TOLD you that science must be provable and that scientist assume nothing and love to be proven wrong. He lied. Oh, I could say SO much (but this isn't the proper forum or community for that). Just like churches and theologians aren't always PURE, holy, humble servants of God's Truth, well..... But that needs to be balance by a laity that appoints self as smarter than those who study such things; I reminded of SO many "flat earth" folks LONG after Magellian sailed around the world, I remember all those who insist that Moon landing never happened but that aliens crashed at Roswell. There are people (laity and otherwise) who simply choose to HOLD to something as Dogma in the face of the obvious (you'd need to ask Dr. Phil for the reason for that; I won't pretend to theorize).

I think this is another area where the climate change religion fails. As a kinda-sorta-layman-scientist (i.e. one who knows something about science without doing it professionally) an experiment needs a hypothesis, a control, and a means of interpreting observations to determine whether they support the hypothesis, detract from it, or have no bearing. The climate change religion fails on all counts - the only available control is kinda kludged from what we know about the earth at any given time. There seem to be no possible observations that would be taken as demonstrating that man-made climate change is not true - if we have a mild winter it's because of climate change, if we have a brutal winter it's because of climate change, a scorching hot summer is because of climate change, a mild summer is the result of climate change, if there's heavy rain it's climate change but if there's a drought that's also climate change, a decrease in polar ice is climate change as is an increase in polar ice, and so on. It must be pretty nice to form something that can be presented as a scientific hypothesis when you can take any possible observation and claim it as evidence your hypothesis is correct.

It reminds me very much of what my chemistry teacher told me back when I was about 14. He was talking about chemical symbols and said that the most important one, the one that drives just about everything, is $.

 

[JRT]

If we examine our universe there are a number of observations that must be consistently explained:

1. tidal effects on earth
2. moon's near side “locked' to earth
3. phases of the moon
4. retardation of the moon's 'rising'
5. seasons of the earth
6. seasonal 24 hour days and nights in the arctic and antarctic
7. coreolis effects on earth
8. Foucault's pendulum
9. precession of the earth's axis
10. apparent daily rotation of the "fixed stars" about the pole star
11. motion of the "wandering stars" (planets) including retrograde motion
12. earth-moon centre of gravity orbits
13. eclipses of the sun, moon and planets
14. northern and southern lights
15. meteors, asteroids and comets
16. moons and/or rings around other planets
17. there are certainly other effects that I have missed

There is only one self consistent model that explains all of these observations and that is the present cosmology of our solar system. This does not explain why these objects behave as they do, it only provides a very refined model that accounts for all the observed effects.

Now add into this the experimentally verified non-relativistic laws of motion and of gravity, known as Newtonian or classical mechanics, and we now have the why that explains the model in a near perfect manner. It is so successful that it has enabled us to send people into earth and moon orbits, to the moon itself and even return to earth. We have been able to navigate probes to all the planets and beyond. People have stood on our moon and observed our planet rotating in front of them in real time. Any other cosmology finds it necessary to suspend known laws of science, hypothesize supernatural intervention and invoke a conspiracy theory extending over centuries involving tens of millions of people a great many of whom are Christian.

In Old Testament times it is certainly true that they regarded the earth as flat in a three tiered universe --- flat with a sky-dome (the firmament) overhead. Just like the rapture theory and the trinity theory, the flat earth worldview is nowhere stated explicitly but it is alluded to in many places. There are also many old testament and even a few new testament stories that are only to be understood in a flat earth context. Generally this flat earth was regarded as circular but we are in places told that it has four corners and is supported by pillars and that there are storehouses for the snow and hail. Of course this seems very primitive to us today but we must remember that these scriptures come out of a far less sophisticated culture. A culture that was deeply suspicious of anything Gentile. It may well be that some of the educated elite were aware of the Greek notion of a spherical world but with an illiteracy rate of about 90% the common people certainly were not. The scriptures were most likely written with the naivety of the common people in mind and used language that would not stretch their credulity too far.

In New Testament times, the young Christian church had a similar suspicion of paganism. Over a period of several centuries it systematically destroyed all things pagan. Temples, shrines, academies, libraries and universities were pulled down and burned. Their priests, teachers and professors were tortured and executed often in front of bloodthirsty Christian mobs. They destroyed not just spiritual works but any book even the slightest bit tainted by paganism even if it was on astronomy, medicine, engineering, technology, mathematics, geography, history or architecture. This massive loss of the underpinnings of civilization contributed in part to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent thousand years of the Dark Ages. In AD380 after a yet another wave of persecution, the 95 year-old hierophant Nestorius, ended the Eleusinian Mysteries and announced the predominance of mental darkness over the human race. How very ironic and prophetic!

It is little wonder then that the flat earth notion persisted so long and that the bible was used to support it. After all the flat earth was the biblical worldview. Should it concern us that the bible supported this notion? Not at all! We do not need to rush to its defense and use weasel words to somehow prove to ourselves that the bible authors had the same worldview that we do. We must realize that these authors lived in a historical context and that the language and ideas that they used fit that context as well.

 

[Stravinsk]

Hello JRT, and welcome to the discussion. My answers in *blue to each of your points in your quote below.

If we examine our universe there are a number of observations that must be consistently explained:

1. tidal effects on earth How is this "consistently explained when those "tidal effects" do not effect lakes/ponds etc - but only oceans? If it's the moon - it must be fickle.
2. moon's near side “locked' to earth If the moon is attached to the firmament somehow, this would also explain always only seeing one side of it.
3. phases of the moon The phases of the moon aren't explained by the "Solar System" model - every single month you can observe both the sun and moon in the sky with the "lit" portion of the moon not even facing the sun!
4. retardation of the moon's 'rising'
5. seasons of the earth The "Solar System" doesn't explain this "better" - it only offers a different explanation than FE. On FE, the sun spirals from tropic to tropic throughout the year, giving our seasons.
6. seasonal 24 hour days and nights in the arctic and antarctic This is only true for the Arctic, and not the Antarctic. Yes, I know you can show me video, and if/when you do I can show you it's been fabricated.
7. coreolis effects on earth - This is a myth. This supposed effect is NOT taken into account by real snipers and is NOT part of military training for them. It is, however put in pop culture television and repeated ad nauseam by globe believers.
8. Foucault's pendulum - is neither consistent and does not prove anything.
9. precession of the earth's axis I think you mean "procession". And you can prove this?
10. apparent daily rotation of the "fixed stars" about the pole star This neither proves globe or flat earth and disproves neither. However, the lack of parallax between them does prove they aren't at varying distances.
11. motion of the "wandering stars" (planets) including retrograde motion If one already has the indoctrination that stars are some sort of suns or "burning balls of gas" and not in any way living beings as the bible hints that they are (God names them, they sing, etc), then the assumption that they have no will and are obeying the design of the Creator follows. Fortunately, as no one has ever been to a star we can make none of these assumptions. The people who try to tell you they know how stars form and how they die are absolutely full of it and can prove no such things.
12. earth-moon centre of gravity orbits Huh?
13. eclipses of the sun, moon and planets Solar and lunar eclipses follow regular time patterns that have been known about for centuries. If either the sun or moon is visible during an eclipse at some point away from said eclipse, then the SS model is faulty. These observations have been made.
14. northern and southern lights
15. meteors, asteroids and comets The funny thing about these is - if spinning ball earth were true, you'd see them going in all directions from our vantage point - not just sideways and DOWN - but also shooting up. But then, we never see that.
16. moons and/or rings around other planets You mean like the ones that Galileo is supposed to have seen but we know now is complete bs? At the time Galileo made his observation, the common man had no access to telescopes. Times have changed. Go out and get yourself a nikon p900 and see for yourself if you can observe any of the moon he supposed he did.
17. there are certainly other effects that I have missed

There is only one self consistent model that explains all of these observations and that is the present cosmology of our solar system. This does not explain why these objects behave as they do, it only provides a very refined model that accounts for all the observed effects.

With lots of assumptions including the nature of stars, effects that can't be proven, the distance light can be observed etc.

Now add into this (snipped because post too long - see JRT's post for rest of quote)

LOL. We have never been to the moon. Gravity is a joke. It's a catch all term that "explains everything" when it can't be explained otherwise. You're stuck to the ground because of gravity - but you can defy it by jumping up or climbing into a hot air balloon. Then what do they say what do they say? They say "Gravity is a relatively weak force" - oh I see, I see!!! So weak that it somehow also keeps entire planets in orbit around the sun, and also the moon in orbit around the earth! In other words, it's super strong when they want to explain one of it's aspects, and super weak when they want to explain another of it's magical aspects.

In Old Testament times it is certainly true that they regarded the earth as flat in a three tiered universe --- flat with a sky-dome (the firmament) overhead. Just like the rapture theory and the trinity theory, the flat earth worldview is nowhere stated explicitly but it is alluded to in many places. There are also many old testament and even a few new testament stories that are only to be understood in a flat earth context. Generally this flat earth was regarded as circular but we are in places told that it has four corners and is supported by pillars and that there are storehouses for the snow and hail. Of course this seems very primitive to us today but we must remember that these scriptures come out of a far less sophisticated culture. A culture that was deeply suspicious of anything Gentile. It may well be that some of the educated elite were aware of the Greek notion of a spherical world but with an illiteracy rate of about 90% the common people certainly were not. The scriptures were most likely written with the naivety of the common people in mind and used language that would not stretch their credulity too far.

In other words, the "holy Scriptures" you read are complete lies when it comes to the cosmology in which we live. Sort of hard to take anything it says seriously, don't ya think?

In New Testament times, the young Christian church had a similar suspicion of paganism. Over a period of several centuries it systematically destroyed all things pagan. Temples, shrines, academies, libraries and universities were pulled down and burned. Their priests, teachers and professors were tortured and executed often in front of bloodthirsty Christian mobs. They destroyed not just spiritual works but any book even the slightest bit tainted by paganism even if it was on astronomy, medicine, engineering, technology, mathematics, geography, history or architecture. This massive loss of the underpinnings of civilization contributed in part to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent thousand years of the Dark Ages. In AD380 after a yet another wave of persecution, the 95 year-old hierophant Nestorius, ended the Eleusinian Mysteries and announced the predominance of mental darkness over the human race. How very ironic and prophetic!

It is little wonder then that the flat earth notion persisted so long and that the bible was used to support it. After all the flat earth was the biblical worldview. Should it concern us that the bible supported this notion? Not at all! We do not need to rush to its defense and use weasel words to somehow prove to ourselves that the bible authors had the same worldview that we do. We must realize that these authors lived in a historical context and that the language and ideas that they used fit that context as well.

The bible and it's authors are not the only ones to subscribe to the flat earth. A great many of the ancient belief systems also subscribed to it.

Here is a fact you can chew on for a while. If the earth is a ball - the curvature should be able to be measured given a known circumference of that ball. THAT CURVATURE CAN'T BE FOUND and what people say is the "curvature" (things "buried" by their perspective) often even VARIES so what they are assuming is curvature cannot be, as it must be the same everywhere over "apparently" flat surfaces (like water at rest) if ball earth is true.

Here's another inconvenient fact for you to chew on: When you go to the ocean and see a boat "go over the curve" - you should also see boats coming from the left and the right of you gradually fading into view BECAUSE OF THE SAME CURVE OF THE EARTH - but, alas - you DO NOT see this when looking left to right - the boats always follow the same straight path - which invalidates the notion that what you see in front of you is going over what you imagine to be the curve.

Here's another inconvenient fact for you to chew on: No matter whether you are at sea level, a few hundred feet above the earth, or over 100,000 feet above the earth - the horizon always rises to your eye level. This CAN NOT HAPPEN IF YOU LIVED ON A BALL - THE HORIZON MUST FALL AND YOU MUST LOOK DOWN TO SEE IT GIVEN GREATER ALTITUDE.

Welcome to the notion of Flat earth. I suggest high tailing it over to the thread I created "NASA and Facebook tricked you" for a primer. There, you will find out, in the opening post - that the ISS footage is completely bogus. In fact, you can go today and look at so called "live" ISS footage and it will STILL show the same things pointed out in the video of that thread.

 

[IACOBVS]

Just wow! :disgonbegood:

 

[hotrhymez]

LOL. We have never been to the moon. Gravity is a joke.

No. NO NO NO.

What do you think keeps you from drifting off into outer space this very moment? Go drop an apple..what makes it fall to the ground?

Of course weve been to the moon. Theres even a flag there. What..did they do it all on a movie set? Was Stanley Kubrick directing?

You are so wrong and its starting to frustrate me.

 

[Stravinsk]

No. NO NO NO.

What do you think keeps you from drifting off into outer space this very moment? Go drop an apple..what makes it fall to the ground?

Of course weve been to the moon. Theres even a flag there. What..did they do it all on a movie set? Was Stanley Kubrick directing?

You are so wrong and its starting to frustrate me.

I know why you are frustrated. Your head is filled with hollywood entertainment lies and NASA lies.

Did you bother to peruse through the threads I mentioned before?

Flat earther's typically don't believe in "outer space".
Water doesn't stick to the outside of shapes (or the outside of a spinning ball in this case) - except in fantasy heliocentric world. You can't show that to me in any real world example - and neither can any globe believer. The excuse always then becomes that the object has to become planet sized for that to happen! LOL
If there's a flag on the moon - go out and get the camera I mentioned (or a very good telescope) and take a photo...oh wait - too late...in all this time all amateur photography/filmography is missing that flag on the moon's surface.

As for why the apple drops to the ground - it is denser than the air that surrounds it. Have you never heard of density and buoyancy?

When you dump a submarine into the ocean will it:

a) Float to the top
b) Sink to the bottom
c) stay level

?

Ooops...whether it does a,b,c has nothing to do with gravity and everything to do with buoyancy and density - which the submarine's design is meant to manipulate.