Flat Earth Myth

[Denise1957]

I can’t recall where I read it, but a lot folks knew the Earth must be round because they could see the top of sails, and saw how they descended to the water as ships moved over the horizon, indicating the Earth was round.

You’ve brought up a good point. While the naked eye can see an object only so far on a horizon, the object is still visible through a telephoto lens, therefore showing that the object does not disappear over a curve. The convergence zone (area where the sky meets the water) creates a sort of mirage or reflection, so that only part of the object is still seen at a distance, but it’s still seen for a distance beyond what the naked eye can see. Here’s a video that explains it:

youtube.com/watch?v=IdwIMtz8owI

 

[Wesrock]

!

Yes, this is what we all know and have learned and seen amazing artwork that proves its truth beyond any doubt. So we *know. *Even though there are no Biblical quotes to give us the idea we are racing at 1000 miles an hour. I don’t know why that is but I know everything I ever learned is true because I trust our government and I trust educators and universities and schools and the media. They would not lie.

Yes I get it. My point is there is a recent resurgence of the Flat Earth theory, and its pretty interesting. These people are to be mocked and scoffed, of course, because they are going against what we have always been taught, and against what is so clear in the stunning NASA artwork that is such a part of our culture, and our pride. And we, in recent centuries, likely due to our culture’s increasingly superior holiness and godliness, are so much smarter than people of previous centuries, so, it should be obvious who is right. We are.

Nonetheless, there are two theories. The funny crazy one, and the one we all know and love, and take pride in, the one that is proof of our superior intelligence.

Man knew the Earth was spherical for thousands of years before NASA existed.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I am a scientist. I have pieces of paper to prove it. So putting my science hat on,

You are all wrong.

" Its turtles all the way down"

Enough said.

Snoopsword, I am in Australia. I now wish to sue all airlines claiming I get non stop to SA with my hard earned dollars. Thanks!

The only real question we should be asking is how the oceans dont spill off the edges

 

[JohnR77]

That’s not what I see depicted in this artist rendering, is what I am saying. Its a matter of eye. I suspect most people would say it LOOKS like a disc. That’s all.

…I am just telling you what the picture looks like. A flat plate, a disc, not a sphere. I don’t know who is standing there but what I see is two angels next to him. They are floating (they have wings), and he is sitting on a disc, or, it could be an attempt to draw a dome of firmament over the circle of the earth. Whether it is a disc or possibly a solid dome on a disc (as earth is described in scripture), it appears to be floating. Like on water or air. Not flat against the ground. Not upright. That’s what it appears to be. It appears to be either of those - and not a sphere.

.file:///C:\Users\John7\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1%between%1\clip_image001.gif

Medieval Christian Europe knew Earth was spherical.
See mural from 6th century of Jesus sitting on Earth. It is a Sphere not a Disk !

I did not respond a year ago because I assumed everyone else would have seen what I am now stating. In response to my argument that it must be a sphere upon which Jesus is sitting because the height of His head is the same as the others, you were forced to propose the “disk” was floating in the air in order for His head to be as high as the others.

However, if the “disk” was floating Jesus would have seated himself in the center with his legs over the edge. However, in the image, if it were a “disk”, Jesus is seated on the very edge and about to fall off. Therefore, it is a sphere and not a disk.

Just as science develops so does artistic technique. You cannot expect someone from the 6th century to use modern technique to show spherical shape. The use of various shades of blue shows the 3 dimensional shape of a sphere.

I can’t recall where I read it, but a lot folks knew the Earth must be round because they could see the top of sails, and saw how they descended to the water as ships moved over the horizon, indicating the Earth was round.

See Image from about AD. 1230, at above link.
This explains why we cannot see high buildings along Europe’s coast from Florida.

.

 

[Chipper]

Yes, I don’t believe flat earthers use a telescope. The real biggy for me is the star Polaris (i.e. North star). It stays in the same spot in the sky everynight and for the next 1000 years or so. You cannot observe this star in the southern hemisphere.

I have found that the Horizon experiments offered up as proof of a flat earth, almost always have a complete misunderstanding of the mathematics used to develop the Horizon equations, and not only that, they don’t ever offer up proof of the distance being observed.

A flat earth does not work for the magnetic model either. A simple test is your compass. If the earth were flat then the magnetic field flux lines would be pretty much straight up. In other words your compass needle would hit the top of the glass on your compass. A spherical magnetic model has the flux lines following the curvature of the earth. So your compass needle will point north without hitting the top glass, on a spherical earth.

I can go on and on, but I will tell you that every time I have responded with mathematical proof that they were wrong, the owners invariably hid my comments from the public and never allowed the public to view my proofs that they were wrong. So I gave up even looking at any more you tube la la land flat earth clips. They will not let your comments disproving them be viewed.

 

[Chipper]

You’ve brought up a good point. While the naked eye can see an object only so far on a horizon, the object is still visible through a telephoto lens, therefore showing that the object does not disappear over a curve. The convergence zone (area where the sky meets the water) creates a sort of mirage or reflection, so that only part of the object is still seen at a distance, but it’s still seen for a distance beyond what the naked eye can see. Here’s a video that explains it:

youtube.com/watch?v=IdwIMtz8owI

Okay I tortured myself and watched yet another flat earth horizon you tube video.

The lady in the video is completely making up her own science called Convergence lines. Oh my word. She knows nothing of the science of optical illusions.

First of all her horizon drop was based on a 6 foot observer height. This is completely inverted and wrong. The observer is the height of the ship - not her.

Also a camera telephoto lens does what, it magnifies a point farther away from you, in other words it extends the horizon. That is why you see it disappear with your eyes but the telephoto still displays it. If she kept watching through the telephoto she would see it disappear from bottom up, even through the telephoto.

…

 

[Denise1957]

Okay I tortured myself and watched yet another flat earth horizon you tube video.

The lady in the video is completely making up her own science called Convergence lines. Oh my word. She knows nothing of the science of optical illusions.

First of all her horizon drop was based on a 6 foot observer height. This is completely inverted and wrong. The observer is the height of the ship - not her.

Also a camera telephoto lens does what, it magnifies a point farther away from you, in other words it extends the horizon. That is why you see it disappear with your eyes but the telephoto still displays it. If she kept watching through the telephoto she would see it disappear from bottom up, even through the telephoto.

…

I’m happy that you watched the video.

The woman on the video makes sense to me, from a common sense POV.

I’m not sure what you mean by stating that the observer is at the height of the ship, not her. She is viewing the ship through a camera located on the beach. Perhaps you could explain further.

I agree that a camera telephoto lens extends the horizon. And yes, at some point it will still disappear out of sight. And yes, as the woman stated in the video, the ship began to disappear from the bottom up.

The reason for bringing up this subject is that in the old days, it was believed that the earth was a sphere because ships disappeared over the horizon. But our eyes are only able to see so far, due in part to the reflection and convergence zone, not because there’s a curvature. You need to prove that there really is a curvature. So far, that’s not been done. Thanks!

 

[Wesrock]

The curvature of the Earth is proven. The ancient Greeks proved it by measuring the angle of the sun at different latitudes at the same time. It’s been measured and put into use for satellites in order to keep them in orbit. Planes have charted the proper geodesics across the spherical surface of the earth in order to calculate the shortest routes in spherical geometry. Mariners have depended on latitude measurements for thousands of years when navigating, and longitudinal measurements as well, once those developed. People have sailed to the poles and around the world. East to west circles at higher latitudes are shorter distances than due east and west circles at lower. The star Polaris (the North Star) is directly above at the north pole and is lower in the sky at lower latitudes until eventually becoming completely lost to sight beneath the horizon south of the equator due to the curvature of the earth. The annual seasons we experience (differently depending upon latitude) are entirely due to the curvature and tilt of the earth.

If you can’t trust the authority of millennia of mariners and philosophers and scientists knowing the world is round and putting that to practical use, I can’t understand how you can trust in the authority of the Church or the Bible. God gave us reason so that we can use it. Man has known and employed knowledge of a spherical earth for thousands of years.

 

[Denise1957]

The curvature of the Earth is proven. The ancient Greeks proved it by measuring the angle of the sun at different latitudes at the same time. It’s been measured and put into use for satellites in order to keep them in orbit. Planes have charted the proper geodesics across the spherical surface of the earth in order to calculate the shortest routes in spherical geometry. Mariners have depended on latitude measurements for thousands of years when navigating, and longitudinal measurements as well, once those developed. People have sailed to the poles and around the world. East to west circles at higher latitudes are shorter distances than due east and west circles at lower. The star Polaris (the North Star) is directly above at the north pole and is lower in the sky at lower latitudes until eventually becoming completely lost to sight beneath the horizon south of the equator due to the curvature of the earth. The annual seasons we experience (differently depending upon latitude) are entirely due to the curvature and tilt of the earth.

If you can’t trust the authority of millennia of mariners and philosophers and scientists knowing the world is round and putting that to practical use, I can’t understand how you can trust in the authority of the Church or the Bible. God gave us reason so that we can use it. Man has known and employed knowledge of a spherical earth for thousands of years.

I do trust the authority of the Church and Sacred Scripture. It’s Sacred Scripture that gives good evidence of a flat earth. The Jews of old believed in a flat earth called Sheol, based on the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). I’ll try to find a link for this.

I’ve read recently that Polaris can be seen from the Tropic of Capricorn, which is south of the equator. I can try to find evidence of this also.

 

[Denise1957]

I do trust the authority of the Church and Sacred Scripture. It’s Sacred Scripture that gives good evidence of a flat earth. The Jews of old believed in a flat earth called Sheol, based on the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). I’ll try to find a link for this.

I’ve read recently that Polaris can be seen from the Tropic of Capricorn, which is south of the equator. I can try to find evidence of this also.

I made a mistake above. The Jews of old considered Sheol as a sort of Hell below the earth.

Here’s a written description of some passages in Isaiah that lends to a flat earth cosmology. It’s fairly easy to read (non-Catholic source):

crivoice.org/circle.html

 

[Denise1957]

I found a Catholic website (at least I think it’s Catholic) that describes the ancient Hebrew cosmology based on the Old Testament.

It seems like the author of the article is not a proponent of a flat earth, but is just stating what the old Hebrew cosmology is. The article is titled:
“When the earth was flat: a map of the universe, according to the Old Testament.”

aleteia.org/2016/07/07/when-the-earth-was-flat-a-map-of-the-universe-according-to-the-old-testament/

Here are quotes from the first few paragraphs:

"In a nutshell, the ancient Hebrew cosmology, as found in the Old Testament, considers the world in which we live a relatively flat disk, covered by a dome. Something like a gigantic cake stand covered with one of those classic glass domes, if you will.

"As you can see in the diagram included, below the disk you would find Sheol (that is, the place of the dead, but not necessarily Hell; actually Sheol is a bit more like what the Greeks called Hades) and the so-called “deep waters,” the “waters underneath,” or, even more dramatically, “the great deep.”

"Now above the dome (who’d say) you’d find even more water. You guessed it right: those are the “upper waters” and above them, the “high heaven” or the “heaven of heavens,” where God Himself dwells, as can be seen in the graphic.

“However, as can be explained by the Catholic blog St. Peter’s list, who in turn quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, the idea that the sky is an enormous solid dome is not to be found exclusively in Hebrew cosmology. Actually, it wouldn’t be a mistake to say that such an idea is to some extent, a common heritage of ancient people, particularly Mediterranean.”

 

[Denise1957]

Here’s a pro-flat earth website article that explains the Hebrew cosmology in greater detail, called “Enoch’s domed world,” taken from the Book of Enoch in the Old Testament, of course (Protestant website, I think).

testingtheglobe.com/3dmodel.html

 

[Wesrock]

I do trust the authority of the Church and Sacred Scripture. It’s Sacred Scripture that gives good evidence of a flat earth. The Jews of old believed in a flat earth called Sheol, based on the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). I’ll try to find a link for this.

I’ve read recently that Polaris can be seen from the Tropic of Capricorn, which is south of the equator. I can try to find evidence of this also.

I over simplified. However, beneath certain latitudes, it disappears from view. But the angle of Polaris in the night sky is connected with how far north/south you are.

 

[mikekle]

Since at one time, it was actually heretical to believe the earth was anything other than flat, and a flat earth belief was common, it makes me wonder what some of the things we call science facts today…that will eventually be proven to be completely wrong.

Just looking at other common beliefs and practices in the past 100 yrs that today, people laugh about and could not believe people thought like that…what will people living in the year 2117 will laughing about that people believed/thought around our current time?!

 

[Darryl_B]

My observation is that for all intents and purposes the earth does indeed seem flat, but at the same time for all intents and purpose the earth does indeed seem a globe. How can they both seemingly be true at the same time? Maybe we are living in a geometrical spatial anomaly. Where curved is straight and straight is curved.

 

[Chipper]

I’m happy that you watched the video.

I’m not sure what you mean by stating that the observer is at the height of the ship, not her. She is viewing the ship through a camera located on the beach. Perhaps you could explain further.

It has to do with calculating (mathematical model) of the horizon. She clearly gave the Horizon math results in her video - based on her position.

In order to calculate the distance to the horizon you need to know the radius of the earth. Then apply Pythagorean’s theorem.

The reason for bringing up this subject is that in the old days, it was believed that the earth was a sphere because ships disappeared over the horizon. But our eyes are only able to see so far, due in part to the reflection and convergence zone, not because there’s a curvature. You need to prove that there really is a curvature. So far, that’s not been done. Thanks!

That’s not quite true. The ancient Greeks calculated the radius of the earth, long before we had big 3 masted ships disappearing over the horizon. Their calculations were surprisingly close to modern calculations of the radius of the earth. Once you know the radius, you can calculate the horizon - and guess what - convergence lines don’t have anything to do with it.

And here’s another point. I grew up in a town where a German immigrant, made lenses for the Apollo Missions. He offered to teach/train me in the art. He was the best in the world at the time. I thanked him but I was more interested in Skiing at the time. I do have a mirror hand ground by him sitting on my shelf now. One of these days I’ll make a telescope out of it. Also my brother grew up with one of his sons.

He also got to see the results of his work, and none of the results showed a flat earth. In fact they all looked rather spherical.

…

 

[Chipper]

My observation is that for all intents and purposes the earth does indeed seem flat, but at the same time for all intents and purpose the earth does indeed seem a globe. How can they both seemingly be true at the same time? Maybe we are living in a geometrical spatial anomaly. Where curved is straight and straight is curved.

The earth’s diameter is large enough that it is difficult to see the sphere. Compound this with the fact that the radius of the earth is not a constant - think about mountains and valleys. But you can still verify it with observations and calculations.

Next time you get a cloudy sky, take a good look above you and around you. You can see the spherical shape of the earth reflected above, because for the most part, the same types of clouds usually have similar heights(altitudes) above the earth. The earth is not flat.

 

[Darryl_B]

The earth’s diameter is large enough that it is difficult to see the sphere. Compound this with the fact that the radius of the earth is not a constant - think about mountains and valleys. But you can still verify it with observations and calculations.

Next time you get a cloudy sky, take a good look above you and around you. You can see the spherical shape of the earth reflected above, because for the most part, the same types of clouds usually have similar heights(altitudes) above the earth. The earth is not flat.

I said

My observation is that for all intents and purposes the earth does indeed seem flat, but at the same time for all intents and purpose the earth does indeed seem a globe.

We are seemingly left in a position from one camp or the other that if one is true, the other is therefore false. A mutually exclusive position. I believe based on evidence that the situation is actually far more complex than I am lead to believe and a harmony can exist within the constraints of the data. But we choose to model each position using a stricter more confined geometry based on the size of a sheet of paper, assuming the distance across is going to be uniform with the grander presentation. ie no spatial warping.

The question would then be asked if we get a very large very very large piece of paper and we laid it out on the ground, would we need to pleat the edges. A hypothetical question that would generally spark dogmatic responses.

 

[GEddie]

I said

We are seemingly left in a position from one camp or the other that if one is true, the other is therefore false. A mutually exclusive position. I believe based on evidence that the situation is actually far more complex than I am lead to believe and a harmony can exist within the constraints of the data. But we choose to model each position using a stricter more confined geometry based on the size of a sheet of paper, assuming the distance across is going to be uniform with the grander presentation. ie no spatial warping.

The question would then be asked if we get a very large very very large piece of paper and we laid it out on the ground, would we need to pleat the edges. A hypothetical question that would generally spark dogmatic responses.

A not very helpful one, in that a) papers cannot be made that large and, if they were, would not be perfectly flat, and b) the earth’s surface is not perfectly spherical, but places that have been touched by human life often are artificially flat. So the question really doesn’t apply to this earth.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JimG]

How to answer the “flat earth” charge.