Did God not create everything? Including money? How exactly then can money be "another master"?

You are trying to be logical, I hope you see the fallacy and false narrative you have just presented. You have done so several times already to justify your belief system but this is not a cheery picking contest.

I had a similar reasoning with a Jehovah's witness, I told him why should I believe God exists if I have never seen, heard or felt him?

Are you making that same claim about the earth not moving? I guess you'll make an exception regarding God, right? Cherry picking again???

Let me get this straight!
You don't feel you are moving, so the earth is not moving
You don't hear/see/feel God, so he exists.

Yup, thats not contradictory at all.

I don't understand how this fits your concept of proof. Can you expand on what you mean by that word?

Also, what research have you done on Captain Cook's travel log? To me, it seems you're just parroting what you saw on the internet.

So.... what have you actually proven yourself?

You are welcome. And I appreciate your sentiment. I think some of the people ITT have their minds entirely made up about this and are trolling you. I am genuinely ignorant about what the details of flat earth viewpoint actually are.

Thank you. I'm sorry, I'm still a little confused. At the ice wall, what happens if you climb to the top of it, or fly a helicopter to the top? For that matter, how tall is the ice wall (do you have a picture?). Then if I'm now on top of it and I keep walking away what happens? what is beyond the ice wall?



I agree. If I believed in flat earth I would probably be convinced it was divinely created.

I’ll just say the key is to research for yourself..

I’ll take getting trolled if I can get this out to even one person

Thank you for your suggestion. I’m sorry, I tried to do some googling but I think I’m too ignorant to find the appropriate infio. I saw lots about this 360 degree ice wall, but nothing about what happens when you climb or fly to the top of it. Can you help me out: what’s beyond the ice wall?

Haven’t seen first hand so idk..

All I know is Antarctica isn’t on the bottom of a spinning ball upside down and having water being held upside down clinging to the underside of a ball

Beyond Antarctic ice wall I speculate you eventually run into the same impenetrable material you hit when you dig about 8 miles into the earths core. It’s a crystalline type material that you can’t drill (or bomb see project fishbowl)

So you're just taking other people's word for it and not looking into it for yourself? Okay.

And how do you know this? Have you proved it?

You're close. We're on a flat object in space, but not the one you're thinking of. We even have video evidence that this one exists.

So I was in Korea on a business trip a few years back and called my wife in Illinois. It was the middle of the night in Korea, the sky was dark and I could see the moon as I came back to my hotel. For my wife it was mid morning, the sun was in the sky and the kids were off to school.

How does that happen with a flat earth?

http://tfrlive.com/secrets-revealed-...-garcia-70881/

Very easy to explain the sun is a lot closer so it’s localized and because of our limited vision it’s possibke the sun could shine on half the world.

The better question is to explain the phenomenon where the moon has a phase and sun and moon are both in the sky... how is the shadow casted on the moon by the earth if both sun and moon are in the sky?

The obvious answer is that sometimes the earth is between the sun and the moon, and other times the moon is between the sun and the earth. Because that's how shadows work. You can actually do this experiment with a flashlight, a ball, and a couple friends. Have one friend shine a flashlight at you while the other friend holds the ball in their hand and walks in a circle around you. As you look at the ball, you will see the shadow on different parts of it depending on where that person is relative to you and the sun. Take pictures of it and report back about whether it's possible to see shadows on different parts of the ball.

But you don't seem interested in actual experiments, so I don't really expect that you would do this.

You should not have made this post.

Whether you're being sincere or trolling it states that you don't understand the subject enough.

This doesn't work though. If the sun were close and moving towards me in the morning and away in the evening, then it would change apparent size as it moves across the sky. But I have a telescope and do a little amateur astronomy and have seen the sun with a solar filter. Its apparent size does not change.

Also, I have watched the sun set over the Pacific Ocean in San Diego and it is the same size as it drops below the horizon. If it were moving away from me over the flat earth that is mapped on the website you linked, it would never actually touch the horizon, it would get smaller and fainter until it was a bright star that continued to fade.

My telescope has an equatorial mount. You align the mount with the earth's axis and then the stars and planets will follow a fixed arc consistent with the rotation about that axis.

Everything I have ever observed is completely consistent with the generally accepted model of the solar system and galaxy, etc. The flat earth model has too many inconsistencies to even begin to be plausible.

For what its worth, I am a theist. I believe in God. You are not even close to getting me to buy this flat earth stuff. It is so ridiculous that if I am being honest, I do not even believe that you believe it

You’re right it’s not a “belief” system

Gravity and the current model is the belief system

The onus of proof is proving movement and curvature as it feels motionless and looks flat

No one can replicate this magical force of “gravity” yet everyone parrots it as fact.. for so many mathematical minds I find it funny that everyone in here just accepts what they are told without actually being able to prove movement or curvature or replicate gravity.

I don’t believe anything... I’m saying the facts don’t support the current model. Horizons should not rise to eye level. The North Star Polaris shouldn’t be in the same position for thousands of years if were spinning around the sun and traveling through “infinite” space. The stars should have changed by now but they don’t.

Literally everything my perception tells me is that it’s flat and motionless. Physics says water seeks and maintain level yet you have to account for 70% of earth being covered in level water but forming a sphere shape.

There’s a lot of holes in the “official model” you need to fight through the brainwashing that we have all been through since an early age. It’s nit easy to do.

I can explain the flat earth explanation for most of these things but I don’t have all the answers.

Actually, gravity can be replicated using technology that dates back to the 1800s.

https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.ha...ish-experiment

You can literally do this experiment yourself. And this has been done repeatedly. And this isn't the only experiment. This was the first time it was done and works well because it's so basic and requires so little.

It's interesting that you keep repeating this. People have proven this and seen proofs of it.

It's false that you don't believe anything. You clearly do, because you keep asserting things you believe. You believe that the earth is not round, for example.

As far as "facts" are concerned, this is where we would come to some significant disagreements. It's hard to know what you think a "fact" is because... well... you really haven't even tried to address them in any way.

They don't. This has been explained.

It's far from clear what this objection even means. Do you mean that you think that the north star has literally in the exact same position in the sky? Because it actually forms a little circle if you watch it over time, which would make tons of sense if the stars were relatively stationary and we're spinning around.

What do you mean by "changed"?

This is true. Your perception probably tells you lots of things that aren't entirely accurate. If you've ever been in a tall building, you might be convinced that you're standing still even if you're actually swaying from side to side by several inches.

So here's the fundamental question: Are your senses the ultimate arbiter of truth? Does "I perceive that X" mean that X is absolutely and undeniably true? If not, then what allows you to step outside of your experience of X to come to whatever the truth is?

The water seeks and maintains "level" under conditions that include things like other forces, which includes gravity and air pressure and a lot of other things.

The "holes" you've presented are holes in your knowledge. You've yet to meaningfully address anything.

You haven't actually done this. Among other things, you've only offered speculations and not proofs. Even the minimal explanations you've offered are easily rebutted.

The shape of Antarctica

https://www.iflscience.com/environme...-ever-created/

Aaron you’re being disingenuous by saying the horizon does not rise to your eye level

If we lived on a ball the horizon should always dip away and you would have to look down to see it... instead you can always just look straight in the distance and see the horizon.

This is called the horizon rising to your eye level. This isn’t debatebale it’s what happens. Even when you are in an airplane the horizon rises to your eye level.

This doesn’t prove the earth is flat. But it proves it’s not a ball. Also the whole measuring 8 inches per mile squared there’s no where on the ball that you can account for curvature.

Let's talk about the sunset over the ocean. If your picture of the earth as flat with a nearby sun were correct, then the sun is moving closer to me in the morning and away in the afternoon. Nightfall would occur because it had moved too far away to be seen, I presume. But as it moved away it would become smaller and fainter. That does not occur. Also, it would get closer to the horizon but since it is always above the flat earth, it would never touch the horizon. That also does not occur.

If we were on a rotating sphere illuminated but a stationary sun, then we would see the sun move across the sky in an arc and eventually drop below the horizon without changing its apparent size. Its brightness might decrease somewhat because as it approaches the horizon it shines through a greater thickness of atmosphere so more of its light would be scattered. Also, since blue light bends and scatters more than red light (easily demonstrated) you would expect the setting sun to be somewhat red in appearance and the sky would be blue from the tendency of blue light to scatter.

WAIT! That is exactly what you observe. See how it works. Every example you give would have similar arguments that have to be thought through to understand, but lead to the same conclusion.

You can do this. All you have to do is think carefully and compare what you observe carefully with the various models. But do not trust casual perception. Your casual perception would tell you that the hour hand on your wrist watch is stationary, but careful observation will reveal the truth.

You have a brain that was given to you by God. Using it to understand the truth of the world around you is not a sin. Not using it is the sin.

So now we’re just responding w you don’t understand the subject enough?

Ok enlighten me why planes shouldn’t have to dip their nose in order to fly level on a ball.

So when a plane is on the under side of the ball in say South America it’s technically upside down right? How did it get to an upside down position without dipping the nose ?

It has to stay level to the ground... the ground is upside down in South America if we live on a “ball”

How do planes fly on the under side of the ball in the Southern “Hemisphere” And then fly into the northern “hemisphere“ always staying level with the ground? Wouldn’t at some point they need to follow the curve of the eartth?

Let's say that you are 6 feet tall and the horizon is approximately 3 miles away. What is the angle of depression to the horizon?

If you use basic trigonometry, you'll find that the angle is about 0.02 degrees. Are you telling me that you think you can physically resolve the difference between looking at the horizon at 0 degrees and looking at the horizon at -0.02 degrees?

This is a similar effect. The horizon if you're 30,000 feet in the air is something like 200 miles. At that distance, you're talking about an angle of depression of about 1.6 degrees. Again, this an extremely small value and it's far from obvious that you can actually tell the difference.

I don't even know what you're saying here. But if it's anything like your previous objection, I am confident you have no idea what you're saying, too.

What about being able to see Chicago across Lake Michigan from 60 miles away when it should be hidden behind 1700ft of curvature?

The degrees actually is several hundred feet in drop to account for it being a “ball”

Can you math the "1700 feet of curvature"? I just want to see if you can. Also, what point are you looking from? And have you personally done this?

Yes, there is a drop of several hundred feet. The tallest buildings in Chicago are taller than that, so of course you can still see them. Not to mention that this calculation assumes that you're lying flat on the ground and looking, as opposed to looking from a taller structure like another building or something like that. If you can math the 1700 feet, you should be able to math this out, too. (Not to mention that there are well-known visual artifacts such as refraction of light that can create illusions that you might misinterpret as being something else.)

Do you notice how you don't ever address anything that's been stated and simply just to the next thing when confronted with evidence? I wonder why you do this. (Actually, I don't. I know precisely why.)

8 inches per mile squared...

So 8 * m^2

What’s so hard to understand...

No where is this observable.. nobody has ever proven the curve mathematically.

It's a matter of where this number is coming from. As in, can you mathematically derive this value. Because...

This *IS* a mathematical claim. This is mathematically derived and mathematically provable (in the sense that I can write down equations under various assumptions and show you what the curvature ought to be).

It's also observable. As in, you can actually measure these things and show that they happen. But that requires observations, and your track record of understanding observations that are being made is less than stellar. So you will probably disagree about the observations and move on to the next thing.

And if you think that this number is just being made up, then you're kind of back to square one all over again.