Stew Peters global elite "lie about the shape of the planet"

[Niemand]

It puts our God in His rightful place as master of the house and vineyard.

More like a dolls' house. You get that either way, with or without a pocket universe.

To me, that demonstrates a lack of appreciation for this creation - which is actually quite vast and miraculous.

If you consider a few thousand miles across to be vast.

[Pazooka]

It puts our God in His rightful place as master of the house and vineyard.

More like a dolls' house. You get that either way, with or without a pocket universe.

To me, that demonstrates a lack of appreciation for this creation - which is actually quite vast and miraculous.

If you consider a few thousand miles across to be vast.

That’s only one plane…one slice. You also have the vault of heaven all the way up to the “sides of the north” and the great deep terminating, below, in the “sides of the pit.”

[Shawn Henry]

Multiple skyscrapers would still be able to be seen from St Joseph Michigan but many lower structures would not be seen. A picture is attached for reference.

Certain whether conditions will obscure the bottom of the picture and other conditions will yield a perfect view of what we once thought obscured by the earth.

If the earth were permanently physically in the way, we would never have this view. Moisture content in the air never allows one to see through solid dirt.

I'm quite flabbergasted, out of all the reasons to not believe the earth is flat, you pick the primary to believe it is flat when all the evidence is viewed.

Long distance photos showing no curvature are the entire reason this movement exploded in 2015.

[Shawn Henry]

Ask atheists about what made them atheists and not one will tell you a round Earth made them that way.

The problem with the Flat Earth worldview is that it actually does the opposite. It demotes God from being the creator of a huge universe, into a child directing a tiny diorama.

I didn't say a sphere made them atheists. I'm saying it allows for it and enables it. You have the option of choosing it.

How in the hell do you not see that a biblical flat earth with an acutall dome, allows for zero atheists?

What part of the word zero do you not understand?

By the way, we've covered this before, flat earthers do not suffer from the inability to imagine beyond this creation and to think there is more out there.

Do not impose your own lack of imagination on others. It is you and likely you alone who suffers from this intense lack of imagining what is beyond.

Either way God created the entire universe.

[Shawn Henry]

GPS data comes as planned ephemoris or downlinked in the GPS signal.

That makes sense, thank you. I guess my question was more a 'chain of custody' question though. How many persons, parties, or equipment does the data go through before it comes it you? To what degree can you personally vouch for this chain of custody.

For example, if you have two lead detectives on a homicide case and first one brings the second one some evidence from a different bedroom and the second detective never witnessed the first picking the evidence up himself. If they both have an impeccable reputation everything is fine. If the first detective is under investigation by internal affairs for tampering with evidence, then we have an issue.

[Niemand]

By the way, we've covered this before, flat earthers do not suffer from the inability to imagine beyond this creation and to think there is more out there.

Such a world doesn't require much imagination to visualise. The platygaean imagination probably comes in with working out how to prove the theory, and describe celestial mechanics.

Do not impose your own lack of imagination on others. It is you and likely you alone who suffers from this intense lack of imagining what is beyond.

I can imagine your pocket universe quite easily. So no, there is no lack of imagination involved. I even once thought about writing stories based around the concept, but then I'd be liable to compared to Terry Pratchett's Discworld series (which I've never read by the way).

[larsenb]

The science of astronomy as it pertains to movements of the earth, planets and our solar system in general is quite impeccable precisely because of its predictive nature. Not much more complicated than that.

This is a logical fallacy. All of astronomy worked exactly the same back when the world thought the earth flat.

There are even mainstream astronomers today who say both a geocentric and a heliocentric view would fit what we see above.

The Epicycle theory worked to some degree in predicting planetary motion, but not much more than that. It would be interesting to see any quotes from "mainstream" astronomers today who would make the claim you say they made. Let's see if you can produce them, even one would be surprising.

[Peeps]

The Bible...it says the sun and moon were created on day four, not day one, nor were they the source of light, but were given placements of authority to rule over day and night. Also, it did not say for the earth to go around the sun, but they (the sun, moon, and stars) were made to serve the earth. Also, in the Book of Joshua, Joshua tells the sun and moon to be still, not the earth. But that is the Bible...
Joshua 10
12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

NASA admits using CGI and photoshop on their globe pics.

I think it is ridiculous that there are people that are still using Bronze Age interpretations of science and applying them to the modern day, especially when after many years of observation we can surmise the following:

1. The Earth is a globe.
2. The Earth revolves around the Sun.
3. The other planets in the sky revolve around the Sun.

Of course the Earth can look different in 43 years. It looks different every few months because of SEASONS. Duh!

It can look different in a few years due to there being more water than usual or less water than usual. One only need to look at the Aral Sea 50 years ago versus today! Or the Great Salt Lake 30 years ago vs today!

Or the Brazilian rainforest 30 years ago vs today...

Yeah... but according to the NASA "photo's" the continents have grown/shrunk in that time. The pictures are CGI, and not very good ones.

Biblically, the earth is not what NASA et al say it is. This is clear. In the end it comes down to whether we place our trust in men or in God.
Personally, I believe the Earth is a globe in one dimension and something else in another. Depends on perspective.
So, in one reality it may well be held up by fours pillars.
I'm not arrogant enough to think I know it all, but I do know I have never seen the curvature.

I believe you are closest to the truth of what the earth/universe is/are.

The earth/universe is/are probably like the "mazzaroth" model, which shows multiple dimensions, a globe, a flat plane, and possible hollow places as the video re: "what 33° Masons learn about the shape of the earth" demonstrates, all at the same time.

The mazzaroth contains the universe, with the earth in the center. The earth itself is like another mazzaroth with multiple dimensions. Everything in this model is a nested reality, like Russian nesting dolls, Ezekiel's wheels within wheels.





Believing in a Geocentric universe is not the same thing as being a flat earther.



From:
https://www.bible.com/events/598790
THE MAZZAROTH GOSPEL
IN THE STARS
Job 38:32 (KJV)
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
1. What is Mazzaroth?
a. let’s back it up and get it in context and make it clear
Job 38:31 (NLT)
31 “Can you direct the movement of the stars— binding the cluster of the Pleiades or loosening the cords of Orion?
2. Here we are introduced the movement of the stars and several constellations.
Job 38:32 (NLT)
32 Can you direct the sequence of the seasons or guide the Bear with her cubs across the heavens?
3. God directs the seasons and the Big Dipper.

4. The Bear is also known as:
a. Arcturus with his sons \
\ Symbolizing human / suffering
b. Ursala Major /
Job 38:33 (NLT)
33 Do you know the laws of the universe? Can you use them to regulate the earth?
5. Now notice, there is a universal law that regulates the earth.
6. That means That God has:
a. established the law of the universe
b. that helps govern the things that transpire on earth
Job 38:34-35 (NLT)
34 “Can you shout to the clouds and make it rain? 35 Can you make lightning appear and cause it to strike as you direct?
7. God’s rule is supreme.
8. What is Mazzaroth?
Mazzaroth - Hb - mazzārôt - some noted constellation (only in the plural), collectively the zodiac
Mazzaroth refers:
a. to the twelve signs of the zodiac
b. mentioned only here in Scripture
Psalms 147:4 (KJV)
4 He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.
9. Each star or cluster has a name given by God.
Genesis 1:16 (NLT)
16 God made two great lights, the sun and the moon—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars..

[Shawn Henry]

It would be interesting to see any quotes from "mainstream" astronomers today who would make the claim you say they made. Let's see if you can produce them, even one would be surprising.

Here's a list I found. I'm sure these guys are all dead. I only recognize Hawking and a couple others, but hey, it's a pleasure doing your homework for you.

"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."- Physicist, George F. R. Ellis

"There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun."- Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen


"In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the sun, planets, and comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the sun...And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system."- Physicist, Isaac Newton

"I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

"...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."- Physicist, Henrick Lorentz

"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."- Physicist, Arthur Eddington

"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion..."- Physicist, Wolfgang Pauli

"We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation."- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative."- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation...which presupposes that the Earth moves."- Physicist, Albert Michelson

"The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable...There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest."- Physicist, Bernard Jaffe

"We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

"Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo...it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves..."- Physicist, Julian B. Barbour

"Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be 'at rest'...It was therefore the 'preferred' frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?"- Physicist, Adolph Baker

"...The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether...Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it."- Physicist, James Coleman

"The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves - light waves, electromagnetic waves - could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

"If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory."- Physicist, Steven Weinberg

"Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers - in principle any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter...So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus' book, De revolutionibus orbium caelestium libri VI, were logically irrelevant..."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"...we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"It is possible to describe the entire universe using any chosen point as the unmoving center - the Earth will do very well - and no one can prove that choice is wrong....Scientists today prefer to picture everything in motion and nothing as being the center. If you haven't given much thought to the implications of twentieth-century science, you may be chagrined...to realize that because of the concept of relative motion, no one can prove that the Earth moves."- Kitty Ferguson, Science Writer

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless Earth' This would mean that we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the Earth in which all stars are performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity around the Earth's axis...one has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency."- Physicist, Max Born

"If it [earth] isn't moving relative to the ether, then earth alone among the cosmos is at rest relative to the ether. Now that may be an absurd possibility but maybe it's true. I think you can see that this not going to be very philosophically satisfying, and it isn't satisfying physically either, but it violates the Copernican Principle that the earth isn't special. It is particularly absurd in light of what we know from modern cosmology namely that there are places in the universe, distant galaxies in particular, that are moving away from us at speeds very close to the speed of light. It's absurd to imagine that everything in the universe is pinned to earth when there are such a wide range of speeds relative to earth throughout the universe, but it suffices to rule it out on this philosophical ground."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"The ancient argument over whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously, the most convenient choice is the universe....Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference....If we choose to make the Earth our fixed frame of reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening; the Big Dipper revolves around the North Star. Which point of view is "correct"? Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate. The question is meaningless."- Physicist, Martin Gardner

the Earth-centered system "...is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems."- Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer

"...it is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets...even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system....It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value."- Physicist, Hans Reichenbach

"...I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the Church in Einstein's day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish."- Mathematician, Carl E. Wulfman

"Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation."- Physicist, Dennis Sciama

"Before Copernicus, people thought that the Earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that 'really' the Earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of the sun and stars is only 'apparent.' Galileo and Newton endorsed this view, and many things were thought to prove it - for example, the flattening of the Earth at the poles, and the fact that bodies are heavier there than at the equator. But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: 'the earth rotates once a day' and 'the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.' The two mean exactly the same thing, just as it means the same thing if I say that a certain length is six feet or two yards. Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the Earth, just as accounts are easier in decimal coinage. But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. All motion is relative, and it is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient."- Philosopher, Bertrand Russell

"There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo's discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets...move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit."- Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen

"Descartes is, however, doubly interesting to us in the discussion of Relativity, for at one time when the Inquisition was becoming uneasy about his scientific researches, he gave them a reply that satisfied them, or perhaps he merely gained time, which was long, while they were trying to understand its meaning. He declared that the sun went around the Earth, and that when he said that the Earth revolved round the sun that was merely another manner of expressing the same occurrence. I met with this saying first from Henri Poincaré, and I thought then that it was a witty, epigrammatic way of compelling thought to the question; but on reflection I saw that it was a statement of actual fact. The movements of the two bodies are relative one to the other, and it is a matter of choice as to which we take as our place of observation."- Physicist, Arthur Lynch

"Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho's scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"We know now that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such a difference has no physical significance, [the Ptolemaic and Copernican views], when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What's the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 2mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the earth is not moving..."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"Michelson and Morley found shifts in the interference fringes, but they were very much smaller than the size of the effect expected from the known orbital motion of the Earth."- Physicist, John D. Norton

"This "null" result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe."- Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli

"So if Earth is at rest relative to the ether, then it alone is at rest. That makes us pretty special...Do you really want to return to parochial, pre-Copernican ideas? Do you really think you and your planet are so special that, in all the rich vastness of the Universe, you alone can claim to be 'at rest.'"- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe...There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe.....That would say we are truly the center of the universe."- Physicist, Lawrence Krauss

"I have to confess that I was bothered by the fact that the Axis of Evil seemed linked to a special direction in our solar system......But now we have completely independent data......This is a hint of something really big."- Astrophysicist, Max Tegmark, MIT, The Principle

"The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes."- Astrophysicist, Yetendra P. Varshni

"No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge."- Astrophysicist, Jonathan I. Katz

"Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?"- Astrophysicist, Dragan Huterer

"The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background in one particular direction through space is called 'evil' because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model....the Copernican Principle seems to be in jeopardy."- Astrophysicist, Ashok K. Singal

"Looking into this anomaly more deeply we will find that it remains robust throughout all seven years of published WMAP data, and furthermore that it is very difficult to explain within the context of the canonical Inflationary Lambda Cold Dark Matter of cosmology [the Big Bang]....the observations disagree markedly with the predictions of the theory."- Astrophysicists, Glenn D. Starkman, Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz

"One of the most surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave radiation temperatures at large angular scales do not match those predicted by the standard [Big Bang] model."- The European Space Agency, Planck Probe, 2013

"It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis."- Physicist, G. J. Whitrow

"It will be proper to discuss this, in order that we may know whether the universe revolves and the Earth stands still, or the universe stands still and the Earth rotates. For there have been those who asserted that...risings and settings do not occur by virtue of the motion of the heaven, but that we ourselves rise and set. The subject is worthy of consideration...whether the abode allotted to us is the most slowly or the most quickly moving, whether God moves everything around us or ourselves instead."- Roman historian, Seneca

"But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus...Possibly mankind has never been demanded to do more, for considering all that went up in smoke as a result of realizing this change: a second Paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety: the witness of the senses, the conviction of a poetical and religious faith. No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown indeed not even dreamed of."- Poet, Johann von Goethe

"The Copernican revolution outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom. Since it changed the character of men's habitual mental operations even in the conduct of the non-material sciences, while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that our customary periodisation of European history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance."- Historian, Herbert Butterfield

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the Earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves?"- Philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche

"Christianity is dead and rotting since Galileo cut its throat."- Slote, The Winds of War

[Niemand]

"Christianity is dead and rotting since Galileo cut its throat."- Slote, The Winds of War

The numbers of Christians has increased many fold since Galileo. There are more Christians alive now than there were back in his time. More Roman Catholics alone.

[Pazooka]

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the Earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves?"- Philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche

Great collection. This is my favorite because I think about it a lot...how in the Biblical earth model there is an absolute up and down. One of the byproducts of modern cosmology is that everything is relative...just like our morals.

[larsenb]

It would be interesting to see any quotes from "mainstream" astronomers today who would make the claim you say they made. Let's see if you can produce them, even one would be surprising.

Here's a list I found. I'm sure these guys are all dead. I only recognize Hawking and a couple others, but hey, it's a pleasure doing your homework for you.

"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."- Physicist, George F. R. Ellis

"There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun."- Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen


"In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the sun, planets, and comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the sun...And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system."- Physicist, Isaac Newton

"I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

"...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."- Physicist, Henrick Lorentz

"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."- Physicist, Arthur Eddington

"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion..."- Physicist, Wolfgang Pauli

"We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation."- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative."- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation...which presupposes that the Earth moves."- Physicist, Albert Michelson

"The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable...There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest."- Physicist, Bernard Jaffe

"We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

"Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo...it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves..."- Physicist, Julian B. Barbour

"Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be 'at rest'...It was therefore the 'preferred' frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?"- Physicist, Adolph Baker

"...The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether...Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it."- Physicist, James Coleman

"The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves - light waves, electromagnetic waves - could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

"If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory."- Physicist, Steven Weinberg

"Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers - in principle any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter...So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus' book, De revolutionibus orbium caelestium libri VI, were logically irrelevant..."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"...we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"It is possible to describe the entire universe using any chosen point as the unmoving center - the Earth will do very well - and no one can prove that choice is wrong....Scientists today prefer to picture everything in motion and nothing as being the center. If you haven't given much thought to the implications of twentieth-century science, you may be chagrined...to realize that because of the concept of relative motion, no one can prove that the Earth moves."- Kitty Ferguson, Science Writer

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless Earth' This would mean that we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the Earth in which all stars are performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity around the Earth's axis...one has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency."- Physicist, Max Born

"If it [earth] isn't moving relative to the ether, then earth alone among the cosmos is at rest relative to the ether. Now that may be an absurd possibility but maybe it's true. I think you can see that this not going to be very philosophically satisfying, and it isn't satisfying physically either, but it violates the Copernican Principle that the earth isn't special. It is particularly absurd in light of what we know from modern cosmology namely that there are places in the universe, distant galaxies in particular, that are moving away from us at speeds very close to the speed of light. It's absurd to imagine that everything in the universe is pinned to earth when there are such a wide range of speeds relative to earth throughout the universe, but it suffices to rule it out on this philosophical ground."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"The ancient argument over whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously, the most convenient choice is the universe....Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference....If we choose to make the Earth our fixed frame of reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening; the Big Dipper revolves around the North Star. Which point of view is "correct"? Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate. The question is meaningless."- Physicist, Martin Gardner

the Earth-centered system "...is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems."- Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer

"...it is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets...even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system....It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value."- Physicist, Hans Reichenbach

"...I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the Church in Einstein's day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish."- Mathematician, Carl E. Wulfman

"Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation."- Physicist, Dennis Sciama

"Before Copernicus, people thought that the Earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that 'really' the Earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of the sun and stars is only 'apparent.' Galileo and Newton endorsed this view, and many things were thought to prove it - for example, the flattening of the Earth at the poles, and the fact that bodies are heavier there than at the equator. But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: 'the earth rotates once a day' and 'the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.' The two mean exactly the same thing, just as it means the same thing if I say that a certain length is six feet or two yards. Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the Earth, just as accounts are easier in decimal coinage. But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. All motion is relative, and it is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient."- Philosopher, Bertrand Russell

"There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo's discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets...move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit."- Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen

"Descartes is, however, doubly interesting to us in the discussion of Relativity, for at one time when the Inquisition was becoming uneasy about his scientific researches, he gave them a reply that satisfied them, or perhaps he merely gained time, which was long, while they were trying to understand its meaning. He declared that the sun went around the Earth, and that when he said that the Earth revolved round the sun that was merely another manner of expressing the same occurrence. I met with this saying first from Henri Poincaré, and I thought then that it was a witty, epigrammatic way of compelling thought to the question; but on reflection I saw that it was a statement of actual fact. The movements of the two bodies are relative one to the other, and it is a matter of choice as to which we take as our place of observation."- Physicist, Arthur Lynch

"Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho's scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"We know now that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such a difference has no physical significance, [the Ptolemaic and Copernican views], when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What's the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 2mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the earth is not moving..."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"Michelson and Morley found shifts in the interference fringes, but they were very much smaller than the size of the effect expected from the known orbital motion of the Earth."- Physicist, John D. Norton

"This "null" result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe."- Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli

"So if Earth is at rest relative to the ether, then it alone is at rest. That makes us pretty special...Do you really want to return to parochial, pre-Copernican ideas? Do you really think you and your planet are so special that, in all the rich vastness of the Universe, you alone can claim to be 'at rest.'"- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe...There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe.....That would say we are truly the center of the universe."- Physicist, Lawrence Krauss

"I have to confess that I was bothered by the fact that the Axis of Evil seemed linked to a special direction in our solar system......But now we have completely independent data......This is a hint of something really big."- Astrophysicist, Max Tegmark, MIT, The Principle

"The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes."- Astrophysicist, Yetendra P. Varshni

"No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge."- Astrophysicist, Jonathan I. Katz

"Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?"- Astrophysicist, Dragan Huterer

"The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background in one particular direction through space is called 'evil' because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model....the Copernican Principle seems to be in jeopardy."- Astrophysicist, Ashok K. Singal

"Looking into this anomaly more deeply we will find that it remains robust throughout all seven years of published WMAP data, and furthermore that it is very difficult to explain within the context of the canonical Inflationary Lambda Cold Dark Matter of cosmology [the Big Bang]....the observations disagree markedly with the predictions of the theory."- Astrophysicists, Glenn D. Starkman, Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz

"One of the most surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave radiation temperatures at large angular scales do not match those predicted by the standard [Big Bang] model."- The European Space Agency, Planck Probe, 2013

"It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis."- Physicist, G. J. Whitrow

"It will be proper to discuss this, in order that we may know whether the universe revolves and the Earth stands still, or the universe stands still and the Earth rotates. For there have been those who asserted that...risings and settings do not occur by virtue of the motion of the heaven, but that we ourselves rise and set. The subject is worthy of consideration...whether the abode allotted to us is the most slowly or the most quickly moving, whether God moves everything around us or ourselves instead."- Roman historian, Seneca

"But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus...Possibly mankind has never been demanded to do more, for considering all that went up in smoke as a result of realizing this change: a second Paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety: the witness of the senses, the conviction of a poetical and religious faith. No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown indeed not even dreamed of."- Poet, Johann von Goethe

"The Copernican revolution outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom. Since it changed the character of men's habitual mental operations even in the conduct of the non-material sciences, while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that our customary periodisation of European history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance."- Historian, Herbert Butterfield

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the Earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves?"- Philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche

"Christianity is dead and rotting since Galileo cut its throat."- Slote, The Winds of War

You've got it backward. It's up to the one making the assertion to prove it. Now you need to provide a citation as to who gathered these alleged quotes, and to provide the full contexts for them.

[Subcomandante]

Flat earth fails to account for the following facts:

The fact that gravity is a constant no matter where you are on the earth. A flat earth would necessitate different gravitational forces depending on your location on it.

The fact that depending on where you are at on the earth, the night sky changes, with different constellations visible depending on latitude. In a flat earth scenario, you would need to see the exact same constellations no matter where you are located.

Shadows that point in different directions, again depending on where you are at on the earth. Two weeks from now, I will have no shadow at noon because the sun will be at the zenith point. Up in Utah, the sun will be at a 23 degree angle off of zenith in Salt Lake.

Lunar eclipses showing a round earth making a shadow in place of a flat earth.

The fact that the further you are from an area with many skyscrapers, you only see the tops of them instead of the whole city (plus the accompanying math that involves trigonometry.)

And yet in another thread, we see that education is derided as coming from false teachers. God will not save us in ignorance.

[Shawn Henry]

And yet in another thread, we see that education is derided as coming from false teachers. God will not save us in ignorance.

You provide an entire list of ignorant comments and then state God will not save us in ignorance. That is laughable.

All your points are the same ignorant points made and easily countered in 2015, which shows you are only familiar with one side of the argument. How is that you are stuck at entry level physics regarding this subject yet claim those who have learned more are the ignorant ones?

Gravity pulls things straight down, no matter what shape the earth is. There is no proof that gravity pulls towards the center of a mass. There are quite a few alternative theories out there that have been around for a while. Electromagnetism alone makes a lot more sense.

If you are stating that you don't know why objects disappear from our field of view bottom first, then you clearly are at the kindergarten questions of this topic. The whole reason flat earth exploded in 2015 was because an entire group of people were confronted with the evidence that this isn't the case. Objects disappear from the bottom first because of the viewing angle to them. Once that angle narrows, it constricts our view and there is a greater density of heavier air particles that are harder to see through. To bring those buildings back into view, all you would have to do is increase your magnification, binoculars, telescope, etc.

[Artaxerxes]

And yet in another thread, we see that education is derided as coming from false teachers. God will not save us in ignorance.

You provide an entire list of ignorant comments and then state God will not save us in ignorance. That is laughable.

All your points are the same ignorant points made and easily countered in 2015, which shows you are only familiar with one side of the argument. How is that you are stuck at entry level physics regarding this subject yet claim those who have learned more are the ignorant ones?

Gravity pulls things straight down, no matter what shape the earth is. There is no proof that gravity pulls towards the center of a mass. There are quite a few alternative theories out there that have been around for a while. Electromagnetism alone makes a lot more sense.

If you are stating that you don't know why objects disappear from our field of view bottom first, then you clearly are at the kindergarten questions of this topic. The whole reason flat earth exploded in 2015 was because an entire group of people were confronted with the evidence that this isn't the case. Objects disappear from the bottom first because of the viewing angle to them. Once that angle narrows, it constricts our view and there is a greater density of heavier air particles that are harder to see through. To bring those buildings back into view, all you would have to do is increase your magnification, binoculars, telescope, etc.

Why is there an observable southern axis point? If the earth were a disc, a person on the southern hemisphere who looked south would see stars moving in a lateral pattern. Instead, they see a rotation around a southern axis, just like on the north pole.

[Niemand]

Flat earth fails to account for the following facts:

The fact that gravity is a constant no matter where you are on the earth. A flat earth would necessitate different gravitational forces depending on your location on it.

You can see my opinion on all this, but gravitational pull does vary across the surface of the world. The biggest gravitational anomaly is between South America and Africa.

And yet in another thread, we see that education is derided as coming from false teachers. God will not save us in ignorance.

Some proportion of it is. The popular outlets for science are often misleading, and blur welll supported data with speculation - for example we often see things like dark matter treated as proven scientific fact when they are no such thing. I have also seen supposed reconstructions (complete with animations) of extinct animals based solely on a jawbone or even a tooth. Cute but questionable.

Then you can see the hoops scientists have to jump through to agree with the latest political fashions. It's quite amusing sometimes. Less amusing when they are used to "nudge" the public into authoritarianism.

[Niemand]

The whole reason flat earth exploded in 2015 was because an entire group of people were confronted with the evidence that this isn't the case.

It exploded because it mysteriously started getting vast amounts of media coverage and equally mysterious large sums of money poured into it. It was around long before, and I was aware of it, but it was a tiny interest with little to no profile.

It also happened to be the same year that Bill Gates gave that now infamous TED talk about pandemics. I thought back then he was just another creepy rich man looking for a way to spend his excess cash and make himself look good. Turned out I was wrong. He was the spokesman for an even bigger grouping waiting to pounce.

In both cases, 2015 was long enough before 2020 for the two ideas to bed in and enter the mainstream. Now every midwit starts going on about platygaeanism when they hear a non-establishment idea. It's also proven useful to have Flat Earth brought up in alternative groups online as they rapidly turn into discussion about the Bedford Levels Experiment rather than practical ways to counteract malign political influences.

[Shawn Henry]

Now you need to provide a citation as to who gathered these alleged quotes, and to provide the full contexts for them.

I don't need to provide you with s*#!. I led you to water, you can drink or not, I don't really have a lot of patience for those who are not willing to seek knowledge themselves.

[Shawn Henry]

It exploded because it mysteriously started getting vast amounts of media coverage and equally mysterious large sums of money poured into it.

That's total bullcrap. I watched just about every video and every media event in 2015. There's no indication whatsoever that anyone was getting paid any money and there was very little media coverage, only a hit piece here and there. It was all negative coverage and the media did nothing but made fun of them.

[Niemand]

It exploded because it mysteriously started getting vast amounts of media coverage and equally mysterious large sums of money poured into it.

That's total bullcrap. I watched just about every video and every media event in 2015. There's no indication whatsoever that anyone was getting paid any money and there was very little media coverage, only a hit piece here and there. It was all negative coverage and the media did nothing but made fun of them.

I can remember Flat Earth stuff from thirty or forty years ago. It was very low key. Like the saying goes, you could have fitted all of its UK adherents into a phone box with room to spare. From what I can tell they produced a newsletter, but it was ridiculously amateurish - you're talking about someone using a typewriter, maybe a bit of cut and paste (old school, i.e. scissors and glue) and a photocopier. Maybe some staples.

You'd pretty much never hear of it. In fact you could go years or even decades without hearing about it.

It seems most of those people are gone - old age got 'em... which happens. Then it was effectively reimported from the USA and took on a very different flavour. Everything seems to end up Americanised.

It seems to have had its first revival via the internet in the mid 90s. That seems to have been genuine and organic. A lot of other fringe groups were helped by that - Esperantists, furries, trainspottters ("railfans" round your way), Tolkien fanatics etc. Nothing wrong with that.

Then a few years ago, it started getting massive and I mean massive. You couldn't get away from it. Suddenly I heard more in a few weeks about it than I had in twenty years before. But no publicity is bad publicity and that can't have hurt it.* The Flat Earth stuff I was seeing was a lot slicker, there were stories of big conferences and all the rest. Yes, the reports were mocking and negative, but they were getting more publicity than some movements which had bigger support. I thought to myself, where is all this money and publicity coming from?

It was even visible "out in the wild". Around this time, someone scrawled "research flat earth" all over mainland Scotland (same handwriting!) including remote stretches of the A9 road up to Inverness. I wondered where he got the time and money to do so from.

Every so often the media latches onto something mysteriously (what is it with the Kardashians? I still don't know who they are or what they ever did, but I heard about them non-stop for years without wishing to.) Flat Earth was definitely one of these things a few years ago. Currently it is made up stories about Prince Harry and his wife.


* Speaking of bad publicity - there was a man who died recently who became prominent in the LDS here - stake president and all the rest - all because he originally heard a hatchet piece on the radio about the church, and felt he needed to hear the other side of the story.

[Subcomandante]

Flat earth fails to account for the following facts:

The fact that gravity is a constant no matter where you are on the earth. A flat earth would necessitate different gravitational forces depending on your location on it.

You can see my opinion on all this, but gravitational pull does vary across the surface of the world. The biggest gravitational anomaly is between South America and Africa.

And yet in another thread, we see that education is derided as coming from false teachers. God will not save us in ignorance.

Some proportion of it is. The popular outlets for science are often misleading, and blur welll supported data with speculation - for example we often see things like dark matter treated as proven scientific fact when they are no such thing. I have also seen supposed reconstructions (complete with animations) of extinct animals based solely on a jawbone or even a tooth. Cute but questionable.

Then you can see the hoops scientists have to jump through to agree with the latest political fashions. It's quite amusing sometimes. Less amusing when they are used to "nudge" the public into authoritarianism.

The gravitational anomalies are in the range of 0.02 m/s^2, which considering the average of 9.80 m/s^2 is statistically insignificant.

[Niemand]

Flat earth fails to account for the following facts:

The fact that gravity is a constant no matter where you are on the earth. A flat earth would necessitate different gravitational forces depending on your location on it.

You can see my opinion on all this, but gravitational pull does vary across the surface of the world. The biggest gravitational anomaly is between South America and Africa.

And yet in another thread, we see that education is derided as coming from false teachers. God will not save us in ignorance.

Some proportion of it is. The popular outlets for science are often misleading, and blur welll supported data with speculation - for example we often see things like dark matter treated as proven scientific fact when they are no such thing. I have also seen supposed reconstructions (complete with animations) of extinct animals based solely on a jawbone or even a tooth. Cute but questionable.

Then you can see the hoops scientists have to jump through to agree with the latest political fashions. It's quite amusing sometimes. Less amusing when they are used to "nudge" the public into authoritarianism.

The gravitational anomalies are in the range of 0.02 m/s^2, which considering the average of 9.80 m/s^2 is statistically insignificant.

They are still there, as are massive magnetic anomalies. Some people consider that this is the most convincing explanation for the Bermuda Triangle type phenomena etc, i.e. areas with disappearance rates that there are anomalies which screw around with navigational equipment. (I don't know whether it's just hype, but I heard there is a region of your own country around Bolsón de Mapimí where equipment goes funny.)

The South Atlantic anomaly is significant enough that it supposedly affects spacecraft and aircraft which go over it.

[larsenb]

Now you need to provide a citation as to who gathered these alleged quotes, and to provide the full contexts for them.

I don't need to provide you with s*#!. I led you to water, you can drink or not, I don't really have a lot of patience for those who are not willing to seek knowledge themselves.

Now, now. Temper, temper.

[Niemand]

Now you need to provide a citation as to who gathered these alleged quotes, and to provide the full contexts for them.

I don't need to provide you with s*#!. I led you to water, you can drink or not, I don't really have a lot of patience for those who are not willing to seek knowledge themselves.

Now, now. Temper, temper.

If the water is full of s*#, I suggest you don't drink it. Especially if you live in a hot climate.

[larsenb]

Now you need to provide a citation as to who gathered these alleged quotes, and to provide the full contexts for them.

I don't need to provide you with s*#!. I led you to water, you can drink or not, I don't really have a lot of patience for those who are not willing to seek knowledge themselves.

Now, now. Temper, temper.

If the water is full of s*#, I suggest you don't drink it. Especially if you live in a hot climate.

Good advice, Niemand. I think I'll follow it.