Topic: Flat Earth - page 707. (Read 1095196 times)
In fact, already in the III century BC Ancient Greek scientist Eratosthenes Kirensk (. ca 276-194 BC) not only firmly know that the Earth - the ball, but was able to measure the radius of the Earth, having received the amount of 6311 km - with an error of no more than 1 percent!
Badecker lost all arguments, so he thinks that posts stockpiling agenda will help him. It will not...
Come on. There aren't any arguments. And certainly none to lose.
The Most Difficult Fifty Bucks I Ever Earned
http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/09/the-most-difficult-fifty-bucks-i-ever-earned/
http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/09/the-most-difficult-fifty-bucks-i-ever-earned/
Quote from: John C. Wright
A reader asked me to view the following two hour lecture on geocentrism. He promised me fifty bucks if I was not convinced. I wished I had asked for more. This was painful to sit through.
The man involved, Robert Sungenis, is, to put the matter kindly, a smug and dishonest crackpot without even the zealous honesty the other crackpots, flatearthers and theosophists, tend to radiate.
I was trying to count the number of scientific errors he made, and gave up counting when I realized every statement contained a scientific error but one. (He is correct that the microwave background radiation in space is not symmetrical).
The argument was grossly illogical, merely an assertion that there is a conspiracy theory among scientists to discredit the Bible, and that scientists falsify results and ignore contrary experiments due to personal prejudice.
It haunts and horrifies me that any educated person could be deceived by this man. Robert Sungenis is an uncharismatic version of Professor Harold Hill, the Music Man. Only not as amusing, and without the song and dance.
Here is the lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwx7bYEUIF4&ab_channel=LoneStar1776
Fairness requires me to at least list to the points I found unpersausive.
Professor Harold Hill (as I shall call him hereafter) begins with a fifteen minute explanation of his purpose, which is to show that the Earth is the center of the universe in order to undermine the atheist view that the Earth is in an insignificant area of a vast cosmos.
He repeats this several times, and the argument is never made more logically than this: he rejects anything other than a flatly literal interpretation of the Bible as discrediting the whole of the Bible, so that if an ancient writer speaks of the sun rising or the moon setting, this is support for geocentrism.
The problem with Biblical literalism is that it requires a firmament of water above the atmosphere, plants older than the sun, and the presence of unicorns in the wilderness, leviathans in the sea, and God having hands and feet and wings and so on.
As Roman Catholic, I am not bound to affirm that every non-scholarly flatfooted literal reading in translation of every passage of the Bible, taken out of context, means what the non-scholar says. So, to me, the idea that even one Christian lost his faith due to the Copernican theory is absurd (or, rather, that only absurd Christians would find this a challenge to their faith) much less that the orbit of the Earth around the sun is the main reason for loss of Christian faith in the modern day. The Copernican theory was not an issue for Christians until the Evengelical movement springing from the Protestant movement, some hundreds of years after the entire Christian world saw no conflict between astronomy and theology. It is a make believe problem believed neither by honest scientists nor by orthodox Christians.
The fight between faith and reason exists only the narrow minds of atheists who worship science without understanding it and heretics who worship the Bible without understanding it: two brands of idolaters, each a mirror reflection of the other.
As an ex-atheist, I solemnly assure you that not a single atheist, no, not one, would give a flying fig over whether geocentrism were proven true. Earth being in the center of the cosmos does not prove God exists, or even hint as much. How many atheist of your acquaintance fell down and worshiped God when the Big Bang became the standard model?
Lucretius the Roman philosopher and poet was an atheist (or, at least, a man who believed the serene gods never interfered in human affairs) and he believed the geocentric model.
Astronomy is not what makes atheist doubt the witness of the Christians. (More likely, it is our lack of charity and godliness that makes them doubt.)
The medieval writers who put Earth in the center of gravity, where are all the heavy, mundane, mortal, and un-divine material fell, regarded the center of the universe as the bottom, where hell was. The Earth’s surface was the roof of hell. The stars were the palaces of the saints and angels, the important part of the universe. We were the sewer.
And, as writers from Chesterton to Lewis have pointed out, in no sober man does the size of the universe show man to be too small for the concern of God, rather than stand in mute witness to His glory.
Man is indeed small in relation to the universe. For that matter, he is small in relation to the nearest tree.
Arguing that heliocentrism moves man from the central position of God’s love to a forgotten corner of the cosmos is as illogical as arguing that Caesar must be a god but Christ cannot be god, because Caesar was in Rome, adorned in purple, whereas Christ was born in a stinking stable in an obscure frontier of the Empire.
Only someone unfamiliar with (or perhaps an enemy of) both Christian humility and scientific honesty could make such a stupid argument as to claim heliocentrism erodes faith and geocentrism will restore it.
Therefore when Professor Hill says at the outset that his purpose is not to learn science, but to use science to teach about God, salvation and the eternity of the soul, he attempting gross malfeasance, first by identifying a wrong cause of atheism (it is not caused by heliocentrism) and second by identifying a wrong method of Biblical exegesis (expecting science to match tin-eared literalism of those heretics who worship the Bible, not Christ.)
So the introduction gave me the intellectual measure of the man: the question he approaches are above his mental pay grade.
(more commentary at link below)
http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/09/the-most-difficult-fifty-bucks-i-ever-earned/
The man involved, Robert Sungenis, is, to put the matter kindly, a smug and dishonest crackpot without even the zealous honesty the other crackpots, flatearthers and theosophists, tend to radiate.
I was trying to count the number of scientific errors he made, and gave up counting when I realized every statement contained a scientific error but one. (He is correct that the microwave background radiation in space is not symmetrical).
The argument was grossly illogical, merely an assertion that there is a conspiracy theory among scientists to discredit the Bible, and that scientists falsify results and ignore contrary experiments due to personal prejudice.
It haunts and horrifies me that any educated person could be deceived by this man. Robert Sungenis is an uncharismatic version of Professor Harold Hill, the Music Man. Only not as amusing, and without the song and dance.
Here is the lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwx7bYEUIF4&ab_channel=LoneStar1776
Fairness requires me to at least list to the points I found unpersausive.
Professor Harold Hill (as I shall call him hereafter) begins with a fifteen minute explanation of his purpose, which is to show that the Earth is the center of the universe in order to undermine the atheist view that the Earth is in an insignificant area of a vast cosmos.
He repeats this several times, and the argument is never made more logically than this: he rejects anything other than a flatly literal interpretation of the Bible as discrediting the whole of the Bible, so that if an ancient writer speaks of the sun rising or the moon setting, this is support for geocentrism.
The problem with Biblical literalism is that it requires a firmament of water above the atmosphere, plants older than the sun, and the presence of unicorns in the wilderness, leviathans in the sea, and God having hands and feet and wings and so on.
As Roman Catholic, I am not bound to affirm that every non-scholarly flatfooted literal reading in translation of every passage of the Bible, taken out of context, means what the non-scholar says. So, to me, the idea that even one Christian lost his faith due to the Copernican theory is absurd (or, rather, that only absurd Christians would find this a challenge to their faith) much less that the orbit of the Earth around the sun is the main reason for loss of Christian faith in the modern day. The Copernican theory was not an issue for Christians until the Evengelical movement springing from the Protestant movement, some hundreds of years after the entire Christian world saw no conflict between astronomy and theology. It is a make believe problem believed neither by honest scientists nor by orthodox Christians.
The fight between faith and reason exists only the narrow minds of atheists who worship science without understanding it and heretics who worship the Bible without understanding it: two brands of idolaters, each a mirror reflection of the other.
As an ex-atheist, I solemnly assure you that not a single atheist, no, not one, would give a flying fig over whether geocentrism were proven true. Earth being in the center of the cosmos does not prove God exists, or even hint as much. How many atheist of your acquaintance fell down and worshiped God when the Big Bang became the standard model?
Lucretius the Roman philosopher and poet was an atheist (or, at least, a man who believed the serene gods never interfered in human affairs) and he believed the geocentric model.
Astronomy is not what makes atheist doubt the witness of the Christians. (More likely, it is our lack of charity and godliness that makes them doubt.)
The medieval writers who put Earth in the center of gravity, where are all the heavy, mundane, mortal, and un-divine material fell, regarded the center of the universe as the bottom, where hell was. The Earth’s surface was the roof of hell. The stars were the palaces of the saints and angels, the important part of the universe. We were the sewer.
And, as writers from Chesterton to Lewis have pointed out, in no sober man does the size of the universe show man to be too small for the concern of God, rather than stand in mute witness to His glory.
Man is indeed small in relation to the universe. For that matter, he is small in relation to the nearest tree.
Arguing that heliocentrism moves man from the central position of God’s love to a forgotten corner of the cosmos is as illogical as arguing that Caesar must be a god but Christ cannot be god, because Caesar was in Rome, adorned in purple, whereas Christ was born in a stinking stable in an obscure frontier of the Empire.
Only someone unfamiliar with (or perhaps an enemy of) both Christian humility and scientific honesty could make such a stupid argument as to claim heliocentrism erodes faith and geocentrism will restore it.
Therefore when Professor Hill says at the outset that his purpose is not to learn science, but to use science to teach about God, salvation and the eternity of the soul, he attempting gross malfeasance, first by identifying a wrong cause of atheism (it is not caused by heliocentrism) and second by identifying a wrong method of Biblical exegesis (expecting science to match tin-eared literalism of those heretics who worship the Bible, not Christ.)
So the introduction gave me the intellectual measure of the man: the question he approaches are above his mental pay grade.
(more commentary at link below)
http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/09/the-most-difficult-fifty-bucks-i-ever-earned/
Badecker lost all arguments, so he thinks that posts stockpiling agenda will help him. It will not...
I reported this post to the mods because it made me wet my pants.
/S
I reported this post to the mods because it made me wet my pants.
/S
Nasa hq mission briefing: how to disrupt flat earthers at bct. Badecker attending(first from left) 
The Phobos Incident
Read more at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/marte/marte_phobos05.htm.
Deimos
Phobos, one of the two moons of Mars, has itself always been considered a rather mysterious object, as has its smaller twin, Deimos.
Joseph Shklovskii noted member of the Soviet Academy of science and co-writer with Dr Carl Sagan of 'Intelligent life in the universe', once calculated from the estimated density of the Martian atmosphere and the peculiar "acceleration" of Phobos, that the satellite must be hollow.
Could Phobos be a hollowed-out space station of huge proportions?
In July 1988, the Russians launched two unmanned satellite probes - Phobos 1 and Phobos 2 - in the direction of Mars, and with the primary intention of investigating the planet's mysterious moon, Phobos. Phobos 1 was unfortunately lost en route two months later, reportedly because of a radio command error.
Phobos 2 was also ultimately lost in the most intriguing circumstances, but not before it had beamed back certain images and information from the planet Mars itself.
Phobos 2 arrived safely at Mars in January 1989 and entered into an orbit around Mars as the first step at its destination towards its ultimate goal: to transfer to an orbit that the would make it fly almost in tandem with the Martian moonlet called Phobos (hence the spacecrafts name) and explore the moonlet with highly sophisticated equipment that included two packages of instruments to be placed on the moonlet's surface.
All went well until Phobos 2 aligned itself with Phobos, the Martian moonlet.
Then, on 28th March, the Soviet mission control center acknowledged sudden communication "problems" with the spacecraft; and Tass, the official Soviet news agency, reported that,
Deimos - "click" to enlarge
"Phobos 2 had failed to communicate with Earth as scheduled after completing an operation yesterday around the Martian moon Phobos. Scientists at mission control have been unable to establish stable radio contact."
What had caused the Phobos 2 spacecraft to be lost?
According to Boris Bolitsky, science correspondent for Radio Moscow, just before radio contact was lost with Phobos 2, several unusual images were radioed back to Earth, described by the Russian as "Quite remarkable features".
Joseph Shklovskii noted member of the Soviet Academy of science and co-writer with Dr Carl Sagan of 'Intelligent life in the universe', once calculated from the estimated density of the Martian atmosphere and the peculiar "acceleration" of Phobos, that the satellite must be hollow.
Could Phobos be a hollowed-out space station of huge proportions?
In July 1988, the Russians launched two unmanned satellite probes - Phobos 1 and Phobos 2 - in the direction of Mars, and with the primary intention of investigating the planet's mysterious moon, Phobos. Phobos 1 was unfortunately lost en route two months later, reportedly because of a radio command error.
Phobos 2 was also ultimately lost in the most intriguing circumstances, but not before it had beamed back certain images and information from the planet Mars itself.
Phobos 2 arrived safely at Mars in January 1989 and entered into an orbit around Mars as the first step at its destination towards its ultimate goal: to transfer to an orbit that the would make it fly almost in tandem with the Martian moonlet called Phobos (hence the spacecrafts name) and explore the moonlet with highly sophisticated equipment that included two packages of instruments to be placed on the moonlet's surface.
All went well until Phobos 2 aligned itself with Phobos, the Martian moonlet.
Then, on 28th March, the Soviet mission control center acknowledged sudden communication "problems" with the spacecraft; and Tass, the official Soviet news agency, reported that,
Deimos - "click" to enlarge
"Phobos 2 had failed to communicate with Earth as scheduled after completing an operation yesterday around the Martian moon Phobos. Scientists at mission control have been unable to establish stable radio contact."
What had caused the Phobos 2 spacecraft to be lost?
According to Boris Bolitsky, science correspondent for Radio Moscow, just before radio contact was lost with Phobos 2, several unusual images were radioed back to Earth, described by the Russian as "Quite remarkable features".
Read more at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/marte/marte_phobos05.htm.
Deimos
The Phobos Incident
Read more at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/marte/marte_phobos05.htm.
Deimos
Phobos, one of the two moons of Mars, has itself always been considered a rather mysterious object, as has its smaller twin, Deimos.
Joseph Shklovskii noted member of the Soviet Academy of science and co-writer with Dr Carl Sagan of 'Intelligent life in the universe', once calculated from the estimated density of the Martian atmosphere and the peculiar "acceleration" of Phobos, that the satellite must be hollow.
Could Phobos be a hollowed-out space station of huge proportions?
In July 1988, the Russians launched two unmanned satellite probes - Phobos 1 and Phobos 2 - in the direction of Mars, and with the primary intention of investigating the planet's mysterious moon, Phobos. Phobos 1 was unfortunately lost en route two months later, reportedly because of a radio command error.
Phobos 2 was also ultimately lost in the most intriguing circumstances, but not before it had beamed back certain images and information from the planet Mars itself.
Phobos 2 arrived safely at Mars in January 1989 and entered into an orbit around Mars as the first step at its destination towards its ultimate goal: to transfer to an orbit that the would make it fly almost in tandem with the Martian moonlet called Phobos (hence the spacecrafts name) and explore the moonlet with highly sophisticated equipment that included two packages of instruments to be placed on the moonlet's surface.
All went well until Phobos 2 aligned itself with Phobos, the Martian moonlet.
Then, on 28th March, the Soviet mission control center acknowledged sudden communication "problems" with the spacecraft; and Tass, the official Soviet news agency, reported that,
Deimos - "click" to enlarge
"Phobos 2 had failed to communicate with Earth as scheduled after completing an operation yesterday around the Martian moon Phobos. Scientists at mission control have been unable to establish stable radio contact."
What had caused the Phobos 2 spacecraft to be lost?
According to Boris Bolitsky, science correspondent for Radio Moscow, just before radio contact was lost with Phobos 2, several unusual images were radioed back to Earth, described by the Russian as "Quite remarkable features".
Joseph Shklovskii noted member of the Soviet Academy of science and co-writer with Dr Carl Sagan of 'Intelligent life in the universe', once calculated from the estimated density of the Martian atmosphere and the peculiar "acceleration" of Phobos, that the satellite must be hollow.
Could Phobos be a hollowed-out space station of huge proportions?
In July 1988, the Russians launched two unmanned satellite probes - Phobos 1 and Phobos 2 - in the direction of Mars, and with the primary intention of investigating the planet's mysterious moon, Phobos. Phobos 1 was unfortunately lost en route two months later, reportedly because of a radio command error.
Phobos 2 was also ultimately lost in the most intriguing circumstances, but not before it had beamed back certain images and information from the planet Mars itself.
Phobos 2 arrived safely at Mars in January 1989 and entered into an orbit around Mars as the first step at its destination towards its ultimate goal: to transfer to an orbit that the would make it fly almost in tandem with the Martian moonlet called Phobos (hence the spacecrafts name) and explore the moonlet with highly sophisticated equipment that included two packages of instruments to be placed on the moonlet's surface.
All went well until Phobos 2 aligned itself with Phobos, the Martian moonlet.
Then, on 28th March, the Soviet mission control center acknowledged sudden communication "problems" with the spacecraft; and Tass, the official Soviet news agency, reported that,
Deimos - "click" to enlarge
"Phobos 2 had failed to communicate with Earth as scheduled after completing an operation yesterday around the Martian moon Phobos. Scientists at mission control have been unable to establish stable radio contact."
What had caused the Phobos 2 spacecraft to be lost?
According to Boris Bolitsky, science correspondent for Radio Moscow, just before radio contact was lost with Phobos 2, several unusual images were radioed back to Earth, described by the Russian as "Quite remarkable features".
Read more at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/marte/marte_phobos05.htm.
Deimos
^ oh, I forgot outer-space, you must believe you're an insignificant spec of nothing in a universe devoid of anything but god's great balls of fire.
You never heard of the aether? The aether is a substance that makes the thing that we call "space" into a solid, probably an elastic solid.
What is the aether made of? It is made of possibly an infinite number of parallel universes that are all out of phase with regard to each other.
What does out-of-phase mean? It means that they are vibrating at a different universal frequency than each other.
Does our universe ever touch any of the others? Yes. In fact, the sub atomic particles of our universe, are merely "eddies" in the elastic flow of the aether, where at least two other universes touch each other. And when our universe touches another in some area, eddies are produced that become sub atomic particles of one of the other universes.
You flat earth jokers are so far behind understanding how things work, that you might as well go back to the dark ages, because you are almost there anyway.
^ oh, I forgot outer-space, you must believe you're an insignificant speck of nothing in a universe devoid of anything but god's great balls of fire.
^ why go out for milk when we've got badecker here who's hell bent on hiding empirical evidence Earth was created while promoting his faith based system where you're required to have absolute faith and believe without question that:
1. Earth is a spinning ball, created by god,
2. the universe was created from nothing that exploded due to god's will,
3. that monkeys climbed out of a tree and morphed into men one day because god does magic,
4. that dinosaurs walked the spinning globe millions of years ago but god punished them for being evil,
5. that gravity is god's will that pulls you towards him.
1. Earth is a spinning ball, created by god,
2. the universe was created from nothing that exploded due to god's will,
3. that monkeys climbed out of a tree and morphed into men one day because god does magic,
4. that dinosaurs walked the spinning globe millions of years ago but god punished them for being evil,
5. that gravity is god's will that pulls you towards him.
6. Massive dinosaurs all running in the same direction to distance themselves from the exploded meteor caused the Earth to spin.
^ why go out for milk when we've got badecker here who's hell bent on hiding empirical evidence Earth was created while promoting his faith based system where you're required to have absolute faith and believe without question that:
1. Earth is a spinning ball, created by god,
2. the universe was created from nothing that exploded due to god's will,
3. that monkeys climbed out of a tree and morphed into men one day because god does magic,
4. that dinosaurs walked the spinning globe millions of years ago but god punished them for being evil,
5. that gravity is god's will that pulls you towards him.
1. Earth is a spinning ball, created by god,
2. the universe was created from nothing that exploded due to god's will,
3. that monkeys climbed out of a tree and morphed into men one day because god does magic,
4. that dinosaurs walked the spinning globe millions of years ago but god punished them for being evil,
5. that gravity is god's will that pulls you towards him.
Research church lies about flat earth (and other things)
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=church+lies+about+flat+earth
The Bible record says otherwise.
I wonder if the earth pole real. If there is the North Pole, what lies at the southern edge? What can answer people who believe in a flat earth.
Check sig Jump to: