Why are there some Christians who are obsessed with Flat Earth Conspiracy?

[Stravinsk]

A copy of "Fire Control Fundamentals" can be found at https://maritime.org/doc/firecontrol/index.htm This is the website of the San Francisco Maritime National Park Association.

Cool. Thanks. Kindly point out to me where the detailed section is that contains measurements that take into account for earth's curve...and especially so called rotation when firing projectiles. Because surely it matters if one is firing due east or west, or north or south especially in regards to rotation. I imagine that the location itself matters immensely as well, as the supposed rotating speed at the equator is by definition faster than nearer to the poles. I've browsed through it...and am only finding more cartoons on these points that state the premise (globe/rotation), without giving measurements and how to's. Help me out.

 

[Stravinsk]

The principal is the same no matter what altitude/depth. The pilot adjust the path to maintain the desired altitude/depth. As long as your flying at an altitude of 30000 feet or 100 feet (or whatever your desired altitude) you are always going to conform to the curve of the earth. The submarine doesn't need to change buoyancy because one they reach the prescribe depth they stay at the prescribe depth. 300 feet (or whatever depth you pick) is the same distance from the surface no matter where you are on the earth. The submarine stays at the same depth from the surface, so as the surface falls away due to curvature, so does the submarine.

Submarine and planes aren't going in a straight flat line. They are going at a constant altitude/depth.

Both Submarines and low flying fighter jets are able to fly (water or air respectively) in straight lines. The Sub uses it's air pressure mechanism to maintain precise depth...and the fighter plane uses a gyroscope to maintain precise altitude. Neither of these mechanisms account for the supposed curve of the earth. Eventually, the low flying fighter plane will crash into the ocean going perfectly straight, and the sub will surface...all due to the supposed curve of the earth.

You are assuming a magical force that defies these simple truths, and somehow makes gyroscopes conform to a curve, as well as maintains a changing air pressure to keep subs at precise depth despite the curve over long distances. I'm going to step out on a limb here and call out what you are assuming...the magic of "gravity". Because that's the only way it "works". Otherwise the basic instruments to maintain straight path are useless.

 

[Stravinsk]

Do you find that it’s the Bible that convinces you of flat earth, or science? Or both?

The bible didn't convince me of flat earth. I became convinced due to having the absurdities of a spinning globe (and it's associated factors, such as what is commonly taught about sun and moon, among other things) pushed in my face. The Bible is just an ancient book that supports the concept, contradicting on many levels what (we in the West) are taught and reinforced with in our public/government educations.

 

[Lanman87]

Cool. Thanks. Kindly point out to me where the detailed section is that contains measurements that take into account for earth's curve...and especially so called rotation when firing projectiles. Because surely it matters if one is firing due east or west, or north or south especially in regards to rotation. I imagine that the location itself matters immensely as well, as the supposed rotating speed at the equator is by definition faster than nearer to the poles. I've browsed through it...and am only finding more cartoons on these points that state the premise (globe/rotation), without giving measurements and how to's. Help me out.

Okay, so the Navy did teach to compensate for the the curvature of the earth, they just got it wrong. Lol!

From what I understand, this book is a textbook for a beginner course and that subsequent more advanced coursed go beyond the "fundamentals" and get into to detail calculations. Either that are the US Navy was the stupidest bunch of engineers and mathematicians on the planet.

Oh, and here is a little sarcasm courtesy of the U.S. Army Fort Sill Facebook Page

The Sub uses it's air pressure mechanism to maintain precise depth...and the fighter plane uses a gyroscope to maintain precise altitude.

well half right. A plane uses an altimeter to measure altitude from sea level. A gyroscope measures orientation. (am I pointed up, down, left, right).

Eventually, the low flying fighter plane will crash into the ocean going perfectly straight, and the sub will surface...all due to the supposed curve of the earth.

As long as you stay the same altitude or depth you will never crash into the ocean our surface. Altitude and depth aren't straight lines, they are distance from sea level. Planes and submarines don't go in a perfectly straight euclidean horizontal line, they adhere to a fixed altitude/depth. 10,000 feet above Texas is the same as 10,000 feet above Australia. If you are flying from Texas to Australia at 10,000 feet then you will never hit the earth (or be thrown into space) because your always at 10,000 feet. Even as the earth curves you maintain a 10,000 foot altitude. You are following the curve of the earth at 10,000 feet.

The Artifical Horizon/Gyro on the airplanes indicates the orientation of the plane relative to the earth. If you put the autopilot on at 5000 feet (or any altitude) the Artificial Horizon will remain "level" because when you are at 5000 feet your orientation to the earth is constant. You would have to gain/lose altitude for the gyroscope to move off "level" flight and once you reestablish at another altitude it would once again show "level" flight. Once again, "level" doesn't mean you are going in a euclidean straight line, it means you aren't gaining or losing altitude.

 

[Andrew]

The bible didn't convince me of flat earth. I became convinced due to having the absurdities of a spinning globe (and it's associated factors, such as what is commonly taught about sun and moon, among other things) pushed in my face. The Bible is just an ancient book that supports the concept, contradicting on many levels what (we in the West) are taught and reinforced with in our public/government educations.

Is there any such thing as true straight? Flat Earthers say its likened to navigating east or westward around alaska, its both true straight and curves in a circle, but the circling takes longer the further south you go, so the earth is more like an upturned bowl, wouldn't we be kind of tipping over a lot? Falling off save those in alaska?

The bible speaks in human perception, we stand flat on the ground and the 360 view makes it appear as if we see the world through a snow globe, plus why would God find it necessary to tell Adam that the world is round like a grape, God would have to then explain gravity, rotation etc.. Adam would probably be like "and? dude you created life, creatures, plants, the earth, you don't have to reveal all the details and mechanics of things, let me just enjoy this garden"

 

[NathanH83]

The bible didn't convince me of flat earth. I became convinced due to having the absurdities of a spinning globe (and it's associated factors, such as what is commonly taught about sun and moon, among other things) pushed in my face. The Bible is just an ancient book that supports the concept, contradicting on many levels what (we in the West) are taught and reinforced with in our public/government educations.

I would love to hear the scientific evidence that convinced you.

 

[tango]

Strav, just to clarify something you said earlier - I wanted to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Are you saying you once believed the earth was essentially a flat circle and now believe it's essentially a flat square?

The bit I can't fathom about the flat earth theory is the concept of 24-hour daylight/darkness. The spherical model just needs a small amount of axial rotation to explain why you get 24-hour daylight in the summer and 24-hour darkness in the winter in one hemisphere, and the opposite in the other hemisphere. I can't see any way that works based on a flat earth model. Likewise the idea of time differences, the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, rising and setting at different times based on timezones, without leaving any band of a spherical earth in darkness. How would that work in a flat earth model? It seems that either the sun would have to move underneath the earth, leaving everything in darkness, or have some other way of setting in one direction and rising again from the other direction.

 

[Stravinsk]

Strav, just to clarify something you said earlier - I wanted to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Are you saying you once believed the earth was essentially a flat circle and now believe it's essentially a flat square?

I made this clear in my opening post. The circular/disc or AE model, at least how it's presented as a representation of flat earth, is *provably false*, especially in regards to daylight times and orientation of the sun. I had to figure out that the FE concept has a Trojan horse, the purposed model. It simply doesn't work and anyone living in the southern hemi-plane knows this on a basic level when they see the sun rise in the SE and set in the SW.

Yes, I defended this model here on this message board in the past. I was mislead. It is false. However, nothing has changed about my beliefs regarding a relatively flat plane of earth (no overall curvature), close proximity of sun and moon, stars being stars, not "planets", and space being a fiction.

The bit I can't fathom about the flat earth theory is the concept of 24-hour daylight/darkness. The spherical model just needs a small amount of axial rotation to explain why you get 24-hour daylight in the summer and 24-hour darkness in the winter in one hemisphere, and the opposite in the other hemisphere. I can't see any way that works based on a flat earth model. Likewise the idea of time differences, the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, rising and setting at different times based on timezones, without leaving any band of a spherical earth in darkness. How would that work in a flat earth model? It seems that either the sun would have to move underneath the earth, leaving everything in darkness, or have some other way of setting in one direction and rising again from the other direction.

I think I answered your question above decisively. The "flat earth model", as it's presented with it's circular sun over a circular disc, is provably false. This does not prove the Globe/Heliocentric concept, which is likewise provably false.

 

[Stravinsk]

Is there any such thing as true straight? Flat Earthers say its likened to navigating east or westward around alaska, its both true straight and curves in a circle, but the circling takes longer the further south you go, so the earth is more like an upturned bowl, wouldn't we be kind of tipping over a lot? Falling off save those in alaska?

Some flat earther's say this because the circular model has been mixed in with other flat earth beliefs. They don't believe in a true straight any more than a globe believer does, at least insofar as circumnavigation goes. Both the Globe Believer and Circular Flat Earth believer believe circumnavigation is done in a circle, the first over 3d circle or globe, and the latter over a circular plane.

The concept I lean to is that there is no visible circle, rather a circuit that isn't easily perceived. That is to say the end of W and the beginning of E meet each other at some point, beyond our visible perception. Can I prove this? No.

 

[NathanH83]

Some flat earther's say this because the circular model has been mixed in with other flat earth beliefs. They don't believe in a true straight any more than a globe believer does, at least insofar as circumnavigation goes. Both the Globe Believer and Circular Flat Earth believer believe circumnavigation is done in a circle, the first over 3d circle or globe, and the latter over a circular plane.

The concept I lean to is that there is no visible circle, rather a circuit that isn't easily perceived. That is to say the end of W and the beginning of E meet each other at some point, beyond our visible perception. Can I prove this? No.

I don’t find flat earth to be convincing.

Convince me.

 

[Josiah]

Moonwalker shares stunning photo of Earth taken from Apollo 11 spacecraft in 1969

Featuring the area of Smyth's Sea on the nearside, picture shows the moon terrain as the Earth is seen rising above the moon's horizon as Moonwalker explored.

www.republicworld.com

 

[tango]

I made this clear in my opening post. The circular/disc or AE model, at least how it's presented as a representation of flat earth, is *provably false*, especially in regards to daylight times and orientation of the sun. I had to figure out that the FE concept has a Trojan horse, the purposed model. It simply doesn't work and anyone living in the southern hemi-plane knows this on a basic level when they see the sun rise in the SE and set in the SW.

Yes, I defended this model here on this message board in the past. I was mislead. It is false. However, nothing has changed about my beliefs regarding a relatively flat plane of earth (no overall curvature), close proximity of sun and moon, stars being stars, not "planets", and space being a fiction.

I'm not concerned about whether you were misled about a specific viewpoint, I'm just trying to clarify the viewpoint you're presenting. The thread is pretty long and it's easier just to ask for clarification than read the entire thread and maybe miss something.

To be clear, are you saying you believe the earth is essentially a flat square (and yes, I get that "a flat square" means something that has hills and valleys based on a flat square, rather than thinking the existence of a hill disproves the flat earth theory)

I think I answered your question above decisively. The "flat earth model", as it's presented with it's circular sun over a circular disc, is provably false. This does not prove the Globe/Heliocentric concept, which is likewise provably false.

Maybe I missed your post, can you refer me back to it?

 

[NathanH83]

Wow, this subject is popular.

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm not concerned about whether you were misled about a specific viewpoint, I'm just trying to clarify the viewpoint you're presenting. The thread is pretty long and it's easier just to ask for clarification than read the entire thread and maybe miss something.

To be clear, are you saying you believe the earth is essentially a flat square (and yes, I get that "a flat square" means something that has hills and valleys based on a flat square, rather than thinking the existence of a hill disproves the flat earth theory)

If by "earth" you mean ground (not sky/firmament), then something probably similar to a square, perhaps more rectangular (ie: footstool). Necessarily, East and West have no "ends" in this idea, so one does not travel to the "edge" as there is none. However, North and South
are met by boundaries - ends if you will - that we cannot go beyond. I have no idea exactly what this might be, but I do know it's not possible for the average person to go past certain points, and this is by international treaty. A rather curious thing, that. I wonder what they found.

All the difficulties encountered by the AE or circular flat model, insofar as sunlight times and direction are not a problem with a rectangular map. The sun illuminates the areas it should at the times we know it does.

Keep in mind this is not a model I can prove. It also seems strange and fantastical...no ends to East and West...do we re-appear on the other side past a certain point? That said, it is no more "fantastical" than the Globe Theory which relies heavily on a faith in so called "Gravity"- the force that supposedly keeps objects down, spins planets, and makes them orbit the sun, with Earth alone in that special place we refer to as the Goldilocks Zone...able to support all kinds of life where other supposed "planets" are barren, too hot or too cold.

I have read the description of Earth in the Book of Enoch, and although it has been a while, from memory this concept is similar or the same. Enoch goes into a lot of detail, including describing several portals that the Sun goes through from East to West, and an Angel that carries it back to begin again once reaching the "end" of the West in the firmament.

Again, I cannot prove this model. The model (this or any other) is not what made me believe in flat earth, and if it were shown to be faulty, I would still know certain things every flat earther knows, such as the closeness of the sun and moon, the properties of water at rest,
how stars/planets really look compared to NASA cartoons, and the fact that airplane trips from E-W, W-E from the same points are around the same length of time, which is impossible if there is a spinning earth beneath them. Just to name a few.

 

[tango]

If by "earth" you mean ground (not sky/firmament), then something probably similar to a square, perhaps more rectangular (ie: footstool). Necessarily, East and West have no "ends" in this idea, so one does not travel to the "edge" as there is none. However, North and South
are met by boundaries - ends if you will - that we cannot go beyond. I have no idea exactly what this might be, but I do know it's not possible for the average person to go past certain points, and this is by international treaty. A rather curious thing, that. I wonder what they found.

If East and West have no ends it sounds like you're either talking about some kind of loop or an infinite plane? When you say it's not possible for the average person to go past certain points are you saying it's inherently impossible or that there is some artificial construct to prevent it?

All the difficulties encountered by the AE or circular flat model, insofar as sunlight times and direction are not a problem with a rectangular map. The sun illuminates the areas it should at the times we know it does.

I'm still not sure how you can have 24-hour daylight and 24-hour darkness using a flat model. You're saying it works here but not giving any indication as to how it might work.

Keep in mind this is not a model I can prove. It also seems strange and fantastical...no ends to East and West...do we re-appear on the other side past a certain point? That said, it is no more "fantastical" than the Globe Theory which relies heavily on a faith in so called "Gravity"- the force that supposedly keeps objects down, spins planets, and makes them orbit the sun, with Earth alone in that special place we refer to as the Goldilocks Zone...able to support all kinds of life where other supposed "planets" are barren, too hot or too cold.

With respect, I'm not sure that "your model still doesn't work" is much of a defense of a different model.

I have read the description of Earth in the Book of Enoch, and although it has been a while, from memory this concept is similar or the same. Enoch goes into a lot of detail, including describing several portals that the Sun goes through from East to West, and an Angel that carries it back to begin again once reaching the "end" of the West in the firmament.

An angel carrying the sun around doesn't explain 24-hour daylight.

Again, I cannot prove this model. The model (this or any other) is not what made me believe in flat earth, and if it were shown to be faulty, I would still know certain things every flat earther knows, such as the closeness of the sun and moon, the properties of water at rest,
how stars/planets really look compared to NASA cartoons, and the fact that airplane trips from E-W, W-E from the same points are around the same length of time, which is impossible if there is a spinning earth beneath them. Just to name a few.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make now. You're insisting your model is true even though you're openly saying you can't prove it, while expecting people to prove other models?

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make now. You're insisting your model is true even though you're openly saying you can't prove it, while expecting people to prove other models?

One thing that really irks me on message boards is when people misconstrue statements to mean something other than what is plainly written. It muddies the waters and gives others "ammo" to fight against straw men.

I never insisted the model I suggested is true. In fact I said it could be faulty.

What I am sure about is that Globe model is false, and the earth is (overall), flat. How does this turn into me insisting on a model? Careful with your words sir.

If East and West have no ends it sounds like you're either talking about some kind of loop or an infinite plane? When you say it's not possible for the average person to go past certain points are you saying it's inherently impossible or that there is some artificial construct to prevent it?

I clearly said it was international treaty, if you care to re-read my statement. For instance, there is a multi-country international treaty that prevents the average person from going past a certain point in Antarctica. Now, if that isn't clear enough, then please don't misrepresent that statement by saying something like "no one can go to Antarctica" or something, because it is just plain intellectually dishonest.

I'm still not sure how you can have 24-hour daylight and 24-hour darkness using a flat model. You're saying it works here but not giving any indication as to how it might work.

The Sun doesn't illuminate the whole earth as it passes overhead. If it's towards the far north, the far south gets 24hour darkness or near to, and vice versa for when it is much further south.

With respect, I'm not sure that "your model still doesn't work" is much of a defense of a different model.



An angel carrying the sun around doesn't explain 24-hour daylight.

Knowing a model is not true does not prove another model, for sure. I didn't claim this.

 

[tango]

One thing that really irks me on message boards is when people misconstrue statements to mean something other than what is plainly written. It muddies the waters and gives others "ammo" to fight against straw men.

I never insisted the model I suggested is true. In fact I said it could be faulty.

You mentioned you previously believed the earth was fundamentally a flat circle, now you're saying it's some fundamentally flat rectangle with two edges unknown. The way I'm reading your posts you are insisting that the earth is fundamentally flat even though the flat earth model seems to have aspects that don't quite fit just as you say the round earth model also seems to have aspects that don't quite fit.

What I am sure about is that Globe model is false, and the earth is (overall), flat. How does this turn into me insisting on a model? Careful with your words sir.

Since we're talking about the concept of a sphere or some flat shape you are insisting on a flat model.

I clearly said it was international treaty, if you care to re-read my statement. For instance, there is a multi-country international treaty that prevents the average person from going past a certain point in Antarctica. Now, if that isn't clear enough, then please don't misrepresent that statement by saying something like "no one can go to Antarctica" or something, because it is just plain intellectually dishonest.

Is that international treaty something that creates a physical barrier that prevents the average person from passing a certain point, or do the elements make it impractical, or something else? There are laws that say I'm not allowed to shoot an RPG at passing trucks but nothing physically prevents me from doing so - in theory if I were to sit on my roof and take out trucks with an RPG I would be able to inflict a reign of terror until the police sent some kind of response unit to put a stop to it.

The Sun doesn't illuminate the whole earth as it passes overhead. If it's towards the far north, the far south gets 24hour darkness or near to, and vice versa for when it is much further south.

It obviously doesn't illuminate the whole earth, I'm trying to figure out how to make 24-hour daylight in the summer and 24-hour darkness in the winter work with a flat earth model, especially if the sun needs to rise in the east and set in the west without dropping underneath a flat surface and leaving the entire earth in darkness.

 

[Stravinsk]

You mentioned you previously believed the earth was fundamentally a flat circle, now you're saying it's some fundamentally flat rectangle with two edges unknown. The way I'm reading your posts you are insisting that the earth is fundamentally flat even though the flat earth model seems to have aspects that don't quite fit just as you say the round earth model also seems to have aspects that don't quite fit.



Since we're talking about the concept of a sphere or some flat shape you are insisting on a flat model.

Yes, I am insisting the world is flat. No, I am not insisting on a particular model. This is where you err. My suspicion is that of a rectangular shaped earth, the circuit being particular to E and W, with N and S boundaries. So you see what I insist on and what I suggest are 2 different things. I learned my lesson taking *on faith* the circular or AE model that I later found out to be false.

Is that international treaty something that creates a physical barrier that prevents the average person from passing a certain point, or do the elements make it impractical, or something else? There are laws that say I'm not allowed to shoot an RPG at passing trucks but nothing physically prevents me from doing so - in theory if I were to sit on my roof and take out trucks with an RPG I would be able to inflict a reign of terror until the police sent some kind of response unit to put a stop to it.

It's called the Antarctica Treaty. In the wording of this treaty it is clear that only Nation States representatives designated by their respective governments can explore, search and observe all areas of Antarctica. That leaves you and me, average citizens, out of the mix. We can go on a "tour"...but only to certain areas.

Here is the relevant document, although it may dissuade you as you have expressed a dislike of reading lengthy passages. The relevant information can be found starting at Article VI and through several articles that follow. The wording makes it clear that only Nation States and their designated representatives have complete access, not just anyone.

https://documents.ats.aq/ats/treaty_original.pdf

It obviously doesn't illuminate the whole earth, I'm trying to figure out how to make 24-hour daylight in the summer and 24-hour darkness in the winter work with a flat earth model, especially if the sun needs to rise in the east and set in the west without dropping underneath a flat surface and leaving the entire earth in darkness.

Flat earthers generally believe the sun to be much smaller and closer to earth, with a reach of light that has limits. On the AE or circular map, it travels in a circle. This is problematic not only in how (we in the South...I'm in Australia) see the sun during our Summer (Nov-Jan) rise from SE and set SW- but also in how areas of the earth get certain lengths of daylight (or lacktherof) during certain times.

On a rectangular model the sun travels from E-W and due to it's limited scope of light, certain areas are illuminated for longer periods or shorter ones depending on season, as the sun's path fluctuates from more northerly to more southerly and vice versa.

 

[tango]

It's called the Antarctica Treaty. In the wording of this treaty it is clear that only Nation States representatives designated by their respective governments can explore, search and observe all areas of Antarctica. That leaves you and me, average citizens, out of the mix. We can go on a "tour"...but only to certain areas.

Here is the relevant document, although it may dissuade you as you have expressed a dislike of reading lengthy passages. The relevant information can be found starting at Article VI and through several articles that follow. The wording makes it clear that only Nation States and their designated representatives have complete access, not just anyone.

https://documents.ats.aq/ats/treaty_original.pdf

I typically only read lengthy documents when they are relevant to something I'm particularly exploring. From what you're saying here it sounds like there's a law that says the little people (the likes of you and I) aren't allowed to go for a mosey around the desolate icy wasteland. Is there anything in there that specifically prevents it, or is it like the law that says I'm not allowed to fire an RPG from my roof but only actually does something about it if I decide to ignore the law?
https://documents.ats.aq/ats/treaty_original.pdf

Flat earthers generally believe the sun to be much smaller and closer to earth, with a reach of light that has limits. On the AE or circular map, it travels in a circle. This is problematic not only in how (we in the South...I'm in Australia) see the sun during our Summer (Nov-Jan) rise from SE and set SW- but also in how areas of the earth get certain lengths of daylight (or lacktherof) during certain times.

On a rectangular model the sun travels from E-W and due to it's limited scope of light, certain areas are illuminated for longer periods or shorter ones depending on season, as the sun's path fluctuates from more northerly to more southerly and vice versa.

If the sun travels over a flat earth from east to west how does it get back to rise in the east the following day? Unless I'm missing something it would need to either pass underneath the flat earth (leaving the whole earth in darkness) or it would have to travel from west to east over some parts of the earth.

 

[Stravinsk]

I typically only read lengthy documents when they are relevant to something I'm particularly exploring. From what you're saying here it sounds like there's a law that says the little people (the likes of you and I) aren't allowed to go for a mosey around the desolate icy wasteland. Is there anything in there that specifically prevents it, or is it like the law that says I'm not allowed to fire an RPG from my roof but only actually does something about it if I decide to ignore the law?
https://documents.ats.aq/ats/treaty_original.pdf

Why don't you try. My guess is that you'll be discovered, picked up and detained by whatever sea faring vessels are monitoring the major southern entry points, and if by some chance not, then you'll need to have a very well equipped vessel, supplies and gear to make it once you do.

60 degrees south latitude, or 60th parallel south is still in the ocean above Antarctica, so to even pass that point (without being on special guided trip/tour) on your own you are breaking international treaty, unless you've been designated by your government and have alerted all other member states to your intention, as per the Treaty.

If the sun travels over a flat earth from east to west how does it get back to rise in the east the following day? Unless I'm missing something it would need to either pass underneath the flat earth (leaving the whole earth in darkness) or it would have to travel from west to east over some parts of the earth.

Good question. I told you the model has some fantastical elements to it. According to Enoch, an Angel carries it back (and perhaps that is as quick as a blink of an eye, so no need to assume any darkness period), but I really don't know.

I wouldn't ask anyone to accept that on face value because I already said it's a model I can't prove. However, if it does seem ridiculous, it's no more so than the all-encompassing, multi-faceted "gravity" that acts as a "go to" for why planets supposedly spin, orbit the sun, selectively keep objects down etc.