The Final Globe Earth v Flat Earth Debate - Page 13 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The Final Globe Earth v Flat Earth Debate


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

i don't know exactly what the moon is, but I believe that it emits it's own light and that it's not something that we can land on.

It's a pretty clever light source if so, being able to vary its illumination like this every month...

moon-phases-Fred-Espenak-lg-e14642032962

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Too funny.

(Like a pancake?)

2 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

...so it has no natural radius from which you could derive a consistent mathematical formula.

Don't give me that.

It's not a PERFECT sphere so you can't do it? :lol:

The fact that the Earth is not a perfect sphere is consistent with the gravitational effect of the mass of its orbiting satellite. That's the thing you don't wish to grasp - these aren't a series of independent scientific claims that you are purporting to question, they are all part of a self-consistent whole governed by 'laws' that scientists have been able to derive from observation and model mathematically. The mathematical models not only explain much of the observable universe, they also enable us to make predictions, and many of which can and have been tested.

I'm not a mathematician, but it seems pretty obvious to me that you can't derive a straightforward mathematical formula for the curvature of a sphere that isn't perfect. The formula for the circumference of a circle is 2 x pi x r (so this can be applied to a perfect sphere by bisecting the sphere at any point such that the line passes through its centre). However, if the sphere is not perfect, the radius will be different at any given point, and without a constant value for r, there is no straightforward formula (perhaps it can be done with calculus, but that's beyond my ken).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

The fact that the Earth is not a perfect sphere is consistent with the gravitational effect of the mass of its orbiting satellite. That's the thing you don't wish to grasp - these aren't a series of independent scientific claims that you are purporting to question, they are all part of a self-consistent whole governed by 'laws' that scientists have been able to derive from observation and model mathematically. The mathematical models not only explain much of the observable universe, they also enable us to make predictions, and many of which can and have been tested.

I'm not a mathematician, but it seems pretty obvious to me that you can't derive a straightforward mathematical formula for the curvature of a sphere that isn't perfect. The formula for the circumference of a circle is 2 x pi x r (so this can be applied to a perfect sphere by bisecting the sphere at any point such that the line passes through its centre). However, if the sphere is not perfect, the radius will be different at any given point, and without a constant value for r, there is no straightforward formula (perhaps it can be done with calculus, but that's beyond my ken).

Pretend it's a perfect sphere.

(Scientism tells us that it's 24,900 miles around the 'equator' and it's 24,812 miles around the poles... so that's pretty darn close.)

So... any problem with 8 inches x miles squared?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Nope, nothing like that as you well know.

I found an image that showed a 'circular' earth inside a square to give you an idea of what I meant and how 4 physical corners could be possible.

You purposely took it as if I was showing you EXACTLY what the flat earth looks like because you are a gatekeeper and that's what gatekeepers do.

Revelation 7:1 states that the Earth has four corners. In this thread you said: "Taking all of the Bible verses and putting them together, the image would look something like this...". Well, I was pointing out that the resulting graphic was not the result of all of the Bible verses. It was the result of cherry picking. Your previous attempt to show how "4 physical corners could be possible" wasn't consistent with anything, including the verse it claimed to illustrate. You still have not unsquared this particular circle.

I am no more a gatekeeper than you are a fuckwit - why not stick to the issues and leave off attacking the man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Pretend it's a perfect sphere.

(Scientism tells us that it's 24,900 miles around the 'equator' and it's 24,812 miles around the poles... so that's pretty darn close.)

So... any problem with 8 inches x miles squared?

I sense you know that answer, so kindly tell us what it is. I'm not a mathematician, as I said, and I don't currently have time to dig around to find out what you're on about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Revelation 7:1 states that the Earth has four corners. In this thread you said: "Taking all of the Bible verses and putting them together, the image would look something like this...". Well, I was pointing out that the resulting graphic was not the result of all of the Bible verses. It was the result of cherry picking. Your previous attempt to show how "4 physical corners could be possible" wasn't consistent with anything, including the verse it claimed to illustrate. You still have not unsquared this particular circle.

The problem is that the EXACT images that I am looking for aren't available.

It's not like NASA are going to release the actual ones now, are they?

Now, despite this, you knowingly move the goalposts and find fault with either another part of the image (that I didn't even endorse) or a 3 letter word in a post that wasn't even for your consumption.

(Let me untangle the ball of yarn that you are creating. I'll go back... )

35 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

I am no more a gatekeeper...

You are.

The result is exactly the same, regardless.

You show up like clockwork to water down truth (not to debate me) but to reaffirm the lies to those that might just wake up (and you can't have that).

You don't even admit the obvious JFK, or 9/11 conspiracies.

You are just an English birdwatcher in Anglo who stumbled upon the TAMB for the Creation/evolution debates.

 Nothing more. :crazy:

47 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

...than you are a fuckwit...

 You enjoyed typing that.

48 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

...why not stick to the issues...

That's pretty much all I do.

48 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

...and leave off attacking the man?

Because I don't trust you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

I sense you know that answer, so kindly tell us what it is. I'm not a mathematician, as I said, and I don't currently have time to dig around to find out what you're on about.

Another TAMBer posted that 8 inches x miles squared only works on a circle but not a sphere, so still waiting to hear from the globe-heads for what the calculation would be for a sphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mariokempes56 said:

Mm - a quicky for the flatties  - what is on the underside of Earth ? Or does an underside even exist ? Am I going mad ..

(Changes made due to unbearably tedious Luciferian knit-picking... )

5 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Thank you for your question Mario.

I'LL DO MY BEST TO GIVE YOU A VISUAL.

Taking MOST of the RELEVANT Bible verses and putting them together, the image would look something like this...

C45mTU2VcAAH6kR.jpgancient-hebrew-universe.jpg

When we say 'Flat Earth' we only mean the surface.

1af597f09f222f793bccd17a020188b0--flat-e

The 'Freemasonic' UN map pretty much gives it away.

Hidden in plain sight...

UNFlag33.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

The problem is that the EXACT images that I am looking for aren't available.

It's not like NASA are going to release the actual ones now, are they?

Now, despite this, you knowingly move the goalposts and find fault with either another part of the image (that I didn't even endorse) or a 3 letter word in a post that wasn't even for your consumption.

(Let me untangle the ball of yarn that you are creating. I'll go back... )

Why do you need images? Your source of information doesn't use images (not pictorial ones at any rate). If there were a way of unsquaring the circle, it should be explicable in words. The problem is not that you can't find the EXACT image, it's that you can't explain it, and you can't explain it because the source you rely on is inconsistent if taken literally. By taking Biblical text as the literal truth you tie yourself up in knots - it's not me tangling the ball of yarn.
 

Quote

 

You are.

The result is exactly the same, regardless.

You show up like clockwork to water down truth (not to debate me) but to reaffirm the lies to those that might just wake up (and you can't have that).

You don't even admit the obvious JFK, or 9/11 conspiracies.

 

Far from watering down the truth I simply don't accept your version of the truth, in the case of the flat earth - same as pretty much everyone else on here. Yet I am the Gatekeeper?

I'm not on the board much these days because I'm busy and not many topics interest me - this one does, because it raises fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge.

Why do you need me to "admit the obvious" about JFK or 9/11? I rarely enter those discussions at all because I have nothing to contribute (you'd think any Gatekeeper worth his salt would be all over them). I know a bit about the history of science; I know a bit about the Bible; I know a lot about the transmission and interpretation of texts. I know nothing about the dynamic forces involved in what we witnessed on 9/11 nor about the events surrounding JFK's assassination so what would my ignorance bring to the debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

The problem is that the EXACT images that I am looking for aren't available.

It's not like NASA are going to release the actual ones now, are they?

Now, despite this, you knowingly move the goalposts and find fault with either another part of the image (that I didn't even endorse) or a 3 letter word in a post that wasn't even for your consumption.

(Let me untangle the ball of yarn that you are creating. I'll go back... )

You are.

The result is exactly the same, regardless.

You show up like clockwork to water down truth (not to debate me) but to reaffirm the lies to those that might just wake up (and you can't have that).

You don't even admit the obvious JFK, or 9/11 conspiracies.

You are just an English birdwatcher in Anglo who stumbled upon the TAMB for the Creation/evolution debates.

 Nothing more. :crazy:

 You enjoyed typing that.

That's pretty much all I do.

Because I don't trust you.

Donny really gets under your skin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Why do you need images? Your source of information doesn't use images (not pictorial ones at any rate). If there were a way of unsquaring the circle, it should be explicable in words. The problem is not that you can't find the EXACT image, it's that you can't explain it, and you can't explain it because the source you rely on is inconsistent if taken literally. By taking Biblical text as the literal truth you tie yourself up in knots - it's not me tangling the ball of yarn.

Completely out of context.

(Do you delight in obfuscation?)

Mario asked.

I answered HIM (yet you rebutt as if you I were answering you).

9 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Far from watering down the truth I simply don't accept your version of the truth...

I don't have a 'version', I have Jesus... THE TRUTH.

11 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

...in the case of the flat earth - same as pretty much everyone else on here. 

Correct. The majority is always right. ;)

(Gotta love those McDonald's hamburgers.)

13 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Yet I am the Gatekeeper...

An admission (hidden in plain sight).

You are like the vampire that got invited into a person's home.

16 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

I'm not on the board much these days because...

...Scotty and Jude haven't been either.

17 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

...I'm busy and not many topics interest me - this one does, because it raises fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge...

...that, and your satanic alarm clock went off telling you to get to work.

23 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Why do you need me to "admit the obvious" about JFK or 9/11? 

One would think that they raise fundamental questions about truth.

25 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

I rarely enter those discussions...

...but when you do, you never call out the perps.

26 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

(you'd think any Gatekeeper worth his salt would be all over them)

Nobody said you were worth your salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Completely out of context.

(Do you delight in obfuscation?)

Mario asked.

I answered HIM (yet you rebutt as if you I were answering you).

I was pointing out that your answer was inaccurate even in its own terms and felt that Mario, and others, would be interested in that fact. This tends to be how message boards work.

Quote

 

Correct. The majority is always right. ;)

(Gotta love those McDonald's hamburgers.)

 

Far from it, but you choose to single me out as the Gatekeeper.

Quote

...Scotty and Jude haven't been either.

Look at my posting history, Scotty; it doesn't bear that out at all.

Quote

One would think that they raise fundamental questions about truth.

Seriously? If so, you don't understand what I mean by 'fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge'. Those were individual, one-off events involving countless variables and therefore not subject to 'theory' in the sense of testable hypotheses with predictive potential. The nature of the universe, on the other hand, is quite different and that's where fundamental questions apply.

I like that you're questioning scientific orthodoxy - it shouldn't go unquestioned. But, by the same token, nor should your explanations of the nature of the universe. People answer your questions more effectively than you answer theirs. And there's a reason for that...

Quote

...but when you do, you never call out the perps.

I don't know the identities of the 'perps', so how can I call them out?

Quote

Nobody said you were worth your salt.

:lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotty, have you ever taken a photograph of the stars yourself? I used to do it a lot, years ago as a kid, either through the local observatory or with my dad's old camera in the back garden on a long exposure. I've seen it & done it, & you get something like this (mine were never that good, but I recognise the pattern) - try it yourself:

night_sky_long_exposure-t2.jpg

If you repeat the exercise repeatedly, from the same place, you get a similar, but observably different, pattern (the stars move relative positions, the planets move relative to the background of the stars - Venus is especially interesting to watch, likewise the Moon). You could probably do something like this with nothing more than a good mobile phone camera & a few decent dark nights.

If you point your camera directly at Polaris (the Pole Star), you will get this type of pattern:

stars-timelapse-mountains-night-hd-1080P

Now, should you & someone a couple of thousand miles to the South of you point your cameras to the same point in the sky, at the same time & take the same exposure photo, you'll get the same pattern, with the single & glaringly obvious difference that Polaris will be noticeable higher abover the horizon to the northenmost observer. Should you manage to get a network of people, you will see a measurable pattern, explicable only by being on a spinning globe.

This is schoolboy stuff, simple proof, no awkward maths or physics needed, just some simple logic; you can't create that pattern & the elevation difference any other way. Try the experiment yourself (assuming of course that you are truly open-minded as you claim) & see.

Re. the Moon & its light - get yourself to a good observatory & look for yourself over a few nights; crescent to half-moon is good. Watch how the shadows change & move. You can see clearly shadow patterns consistent with a setting or rising sun. Free & simple to do.

Edited by Huddersfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Toepoke said:

It's a pretty clever light source if so, being able to vary its illumination like this every month...

moon-phases-Fred-Espenak-lg-e14642032962

 

8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Each illumination is as bright as the next.

It's not the brightness I was referring to but the form of the illumination.

If the moon is lighting itself it is pretty mystifying how these images could exist as no light source behaves in such a manner.  What you are seeing is sunlight reflecting off a different area of the lunar surface as it orbits the earth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Donny really gets under your skin

It's no surprise. Donny spent a lot of time debunking what scotty said, causing a lot of cognitive dissonance which Scotty Solved by thinking Donny is some sort of gatekeeper for Satan.

Pretty instructive when faced with contradicting evidence Scotty deals with it by labelling the person some agent of Satan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Huddersfield said:

Scotty, have you ever taken a photograph of the stars yourself? I used to do it a lot, years ago as a kid, either through the local observatory or with my dad's old camera in the back garden on a long exposure. I've seen it & done it, & you get something like this (mine were never that good, but I recognise the pattern) - try it yourself:

night_sky_long_exposure-t2.jpg

If you repeat the exercise repeatedly, from the same place, you get a similar, but observably different, pattern (the stars move relative positions, the planets move relative to the background of the stars - Venus is especially interesting to watch, likewise the Moon). You could probably do something like this with nothing more than a good mobile phone camera & a few decent dark nights.

If you point your camera directly at Polaris (the Pole Star), you will get this type of pattern:

stars-timelapse-mountains-night-hd-1080P

Now, should you & someone a couple of thousand miles to the South of you point your cameras to the same point in the sky, at the same time & take the same exposure photo, you'll get the same pattern, with the single & glaringly obvious difference that Polaris will be noticeable higher abover the horizon to the northenmost observer. Should you manage to get a network of people, you will see a measurable pattern, explicable only by being on a spinning globe.

This is schoolboy stuff, simple proof, no awkward maths or physics needed, just some simple logic; you can't create that pattern & the elevation difference any other way. Try the experiment yourself (assuming of course that you are truly open-minded as you claim) & see.

Re. the Moon & its light - get yourself to a good observatory & look for yourself over a few nights; crescent to half-moon is good. Watch how the shadows change & move. You can see clearly shadow patterns consistent with a setting or rising sun. Free & simple to do.

See this is actual experimentation. A modern day take on the first experiments with sticks in Alexandria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

The problem is that the EXACT images that I am looking for aren't available.

It's not like NASA are going to release the actual ones now, are they?

 

2 hours ago, Kimba said:

Someone should go and look up Jack Parsons and the Babalon working to see the kind of folk that have and are running NASA.  Science falsely so called (1 Tim 6:20).  

What about the Chinese? Not exactly best mates with NASA...

300px-Earth_and_the_Moon_from_Chang'e_5_

ce5t023_0_cropped.jpg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang'e_5-T1

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...