User Tag List

Page 334 of 335 FirstFirst ... 234284324331332333334335 LastLast
Results 4,996 to 5,010 of 5021

Thread: The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

  1. #4996
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,040
    Thanks
    448
    Thanked 5,625 Times in 3,094 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147760
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick jane View Post

    Magnetic compasses do not "point" anywhere. We are the ones who put the pointers on the magnets. The magnets just do what they do. Magnets have no idea where the magnetic north pole is and they don't care because they have no mind. They are inanimate objects that do what physics requires them to do. They sit there doing nothing at all until a force sufficient to move them is applied just like every other inanimate object. Magnetism is a force however and so all other things being equal, the magnet will find a place of force equilibrium, which in the case of a compass happens to be when the needle that we put on it is lined up, NOT WITH THE NORTH POLE, but with the local magnetic lines of force. That happens to be generally toward the north pole in most locations but not all places and not at all times. The magnetic north pole also is not usually in the same place as the geographic north pole (a.k.a. "True north"), which adds to the effect. In my location a magnetic compass points about 2 east of true north. This is why I advice people to always change the setting on their iPhone to have the built in compass point to true north rather than magnetic north. Pretty much no one needs to know where magnetic north is. Its true north that most people care about.

    The map below show how far east or west from true north your magnetic compass will point (red for east and blue for west). The data is approximate due to the fact that the magnetic field of the Earth is dynamic and always moving and changing as well as the fact that the map is generated by a computer model. So don't take the map as gospel, I simply present it to demonstrate that the magnetic field of the Earth is much more complex than the imbecile who create Patrick's image seems to think it is and that the entire premise of the "argument" shows that he hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about or else he's just lying. Chances are its the later.

    It's too large a file to post here. Click the link...

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ation_2015.pdf


    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 8th, 2018),Right Divider (March 8th, 2018)

  3. #4997
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,040
    Thanks
    448
    Thanked 5,625 Times in 3,094 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147760
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick jane View Post
    I wouldn't know. I know there is a true magnetic north pole. Not so much in the south though.
    There is no such thing as "true magnetic north". That would be a contradiction in terms.

    North magnetic poles are attracted to south magnetic poles. The Earth is a giant magnet. It's SOUTH magnetic pole is near the geographic north pole. That's why the north poles of magnets in compasses "point" toward what we refer to as the north.

    True north, on the other hand, has nothing at all to do with magnets. True north is the point on the globe directly below the celestial pole. The celestial pole is the point in the sky that all the start seems to rotate around due the the Earth's rotation. When that point is directly overhead, you are standing on the geographic north pole (i.e. true north).

    The difference between magnetic north and true north is called "magnetic declination", a map of which is presented in my last post.


    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 8th, 2018),Right Divider (March 8th, 2018)

  5. #4998
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,040
    Thanks
    448
    Thanked 5,625 Times in 3,094 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147760
    Patrick really ought not be permitted to deluge the thread in this manner. I can't even find one of the images that I want to respond to. He makes basically one sentence arguments but takes up 1000 times the bandwidth and almost entirely to no avail. He clearly isn't even expecting anyone to respond to them! Eventually, I suppose, his source for them will dry up.


    As for the Moon pulling satellites out of orbit...

    The Moon does indeed have an effect on the orbit of satellites but there is nowhere near the energy needed to pull them out of orbit. The argument is, just as are nearly all of these little pictorial nuggets of stupidity, based on a complete misunderstanding of how gravity works. To have the sort of effect on a satellite that the Moon has on the ocean, the satellite would have to have the mass of the ocean! Satellites are tinsy winsy little things in comparison to either the Moon or the ocean.

    Here's the formula that gives you the gravitational force between any two objects...

    F = G*((m1 * m2)/r^2)

    F is the force of attraction between the two bodies, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of the first object, m2 is the mass of the second object and r is the distance between the centers of mass of each object.

    The Moon (m1) is 7.34767309 10^22 kilograms
    The standardized value for the mass of the ocean (m2) is 1.4 10^21 kg
    A large geostationary (very high orbiting (i.e. closer to the Moon)) satellite (m2) is about 3500 kilograms

    The moon is only about 52 times the mass of the ocean while it is 2.0993351685714 x 10^19 times as big as even the biggest of high earth orbiting satellites.
    The ocean is 400000000000000000 times as massive as a large geostationary satellite.

    In other words, the gravitational force between an Earth orbiting satellite and the Moon is very nearly (but not quite) zero and nowhere remotely close to that between the Moon and something as massive as the ocean.

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 8th, 2018),Right Divider (March 8th, 2018)

  7. #4999
    Get your armor ready! Tambora's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    51,176
    Thanks
    159,809
    Thanked 46,650 Times in 28,783 Posts

    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2148171
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post


    As for the Moon pulling satellites out of orbit...

    The Moon does indeed have an effect on the orbit of satellites but there is nowhere near the energy needed to pull them out of orbit. The argument is, just as are nearly all of these little pictorial nuggets of stupidity, based on a complete misunderstanding of how gravity works. To have the sort of effect on a satellite that the Moon has on the ocean, the satellite would have to have the mass of the ocean! Satellites are tinsy winsy little things in comparison to either the Moon or the ocean.

    Here's the formula that gives you the gravitational force between any two objects...

    F = G*((m1 * m2)/r^2)

    F is the force of attraction between the two bodies, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of the first object, m2 is the mass of the second object and r is the distance between the centers of mass of each object.

    The Moon (m1) is 7.34767309 10^22 kilograms
    The standardized value for the mass of the ocean (m2) is 1.4 10^21 kg
    A large geostationary (very high orbiting (i.e. closer to the Moon)) satellite (m2) is about 3500 kilograms

    The moon is only about 52 times the mass of the ocean while it is 2.0993351685714 x 10^19 times as big as even the biggest of high earth orbiting satellites.
    The ocean is 400000000000000000 times as massive as a large geostationary satellite.

    In other words, the gravitational force between an Earth orbiting satellite and the Moon is very nearly (but not quite) zero and nowhere remotely close to that between the Moon and something as massive as the ocean.

    Clete
    I can grasp that size matters.

    But are we supposed to count the oceans as a single mass unit being pulled by gravity, or does gravity pull each drop of water in the oceans individually?

    We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
    They already know monsters exist.
    We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

  8. #5000
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    33,404
    Thanks
    18,066
    Thanked 16,576 Times in 13,016 Posts

    Blog Entries
    32
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    There is no such thing as "true magnetic north". That would be a contradiction in terms.

    North magnetic poles are attracted to south magnetic poles. The Earth is a giant magnet. It's SOUTH magnetic pole is near the geographic north pole. That's why the north poles of magnets in compasses "point" toward what we refer to as the north.

    True north, on the other hand, has nothing at all to do with magnets. True north is the point on the globe directly below the celestial pole. The celestial pole is the point in the sky that all the start seems to rotate around due the the Earth's rotation. When that point is directly overhead, you are standing on the geographic north pole (i.e. true north).

    The difference between magnetic north and true north is called "magnetic declination", a map of which is presented in my last post.


    Clete
    The bottom line is this, no matter where you start on the "globe" - if you go in a STRAIGHT LINE in ANY direction, you will hit the ice wall. Thee is no such thing as "going around the world" it doesn't exist and it's impossible. With or without a compass or "magnets"

  9. #5001
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    33,404
    Thanks
    18,066
    Thanked 16,576 Times in 13,016 Posts

    Blog Entries
    32
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    I really encourage everybody to watch this video with details about all the "operations" that took place before Kennedy. After the very compelling and excellent speech by JFK that he made in 1962 @ Rice University in Houston - Rob Skiba gives many details of those times in history and all the "operations" that took place and their names.


    For one, all the "operations" were under the name Dominic which means :


    Dominic is a name common among Roman Catholics and other Latin-Romans as a boys name. Originally from the late Roman-Italic name "Dominicus" its translation means, "Lordly", "Belonging to God" or "of the Master". ... The name, meaning Lord, is sometimes used to reference Sunday (the Lord's day).



    Then the operation to nuke the dome with a missile named "Thor" was called "Fishbowl" - Fishbowl of the Lord


    That describes the enclosed flat earth and cosmos. They know and they found the edge of the dome in Antarctica? They lost planes, many planes under Admiral Byrd in Antarctica because they were crashing into "an invisible force field" - They suspected Germany or Russia invented a force field.


    Were they crashing into the dome? I have some videos I'll post late tonight or tomorrow. Watch this video above if you're interested AND the Aethereal: Battle For Heaven and Earth video. Both excellent and necessary to see, if any serious study of flat earth can be done. Tell me they didn't find out something about the earth and there is no conspiracy. Enjoy.


    33 minutes

  10. #5002
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,423
    Thanks
    24,070
    Thanked 6,818 Times in 4,285 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Nope.

    Pull out your globe model. Hover your finger over the equator, and spin the globe. That's a straight line that does not intersect antarctica.

    Now pull out a piece of string (longer than the circumference of the globe) and (if necessary, use tape) put one end of it at the coordinates 0, 0 (should be in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of africa, and angle it slightly down, making sure to keep it in a straight line as you wrap it around the globe. It should intersect the equator a second time, at 0 degrees latitude (equator) 180 degrees longitude, exactly opposite 0, 0 in the Gulf of Guinea. Of course if you start drawing a straight line at any other point on the equator, it will always intersect the equator exactly opposite where it starts.

  11. #5003
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    33,404
    Thanks
    18,066
    Thanked 16,576 Times in 13,016 Posts

    Blog Entries
    32
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Nope.

    Pull out your globe model. Hover your finger over the equator, and spin the globe. That's a straight line that does not intersect antarctica.

    Now pull out a piece of string (longer than the circumference of the globe) and (if necessary, use tape) put one end of it at the coordinates 0, 0 (should be in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of africa, and angle it slightly down, making sure to keep it in a straight line as you wrap it around the globe. It should intersect the equator a second time, at 0 degrees latitude (equator) 180 degrees longitude, exactly opposite 0, 0 in the Gulf of Guinea. Of course if you start drawing a straight line at any other point on the equator, it will always intersect the equator exactly opposite where it starts.
    You can't do it JR you can't start in Chicago let's say, go west in a COMPLETELY STRAIGHT LINE and get back to Chicago. You will travel a circle around the flat earth to get back. Tevelling in a totally straight line will rout you at the ice wall, I guarantee it. A true circumnavigation of the fake "globe" is impossible. It's fact and you can't twist your way out if it with math, a globe in your house, compasses or anything else. Look at the routes taken to go "around the world" and you'll see.

  12. #5004
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,423
    Thanks
    24,070
    Thanked 6,818 Times in 4,285 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick jane View Post
    You can't do it JR you can't start in Chicago let's say, go west in a COMPLETELY STRAIGHT LINE and get back to Chicago. You will travel a circle around the flat earth to get back. Tevelling in a totally straight line will rout you at the ice wall, I guarantee it. A true circumnavigation of the fake "globe" is impossible. It's fact and you can't twist your way out if it with math, a globe in your house, compasses or anything else. Look at the routes taken to go "around the world" and you'll see.
    Ok, you're not taking into account what I just said, and you're trying to use a flat map instead of a globe. So pull out your globe this time and the string, put the end of the string on Chicago, and while keeping the string facing toward you, start heading west, keeping the string in a straight line. What happens? The string starts to dip south, until it hits the equator, then levels out, and starts heading north again (all still while heading west), hits the equator again, levels out, and ends up right back at Chicago (if you did it right. Did the line ever cross Antarctica? No. Was the line always moving west? Yes. Was the line straight? Yes.

    Now, put the end of the string back on chicago, and instead of having the line always face you, keep the equator facing you, and then keep the string at the same distance above the equator as chicago, all the way around, until you hit chicago again. Now orient the globe so that the string is facing you. Did the line ever cross Antarctica? No, it never intersected the equator, let alone Antarctica. Is the line straight? No. Is it always heading west? Yes, but in order to do so, it has to always turn to the north to stay at the same distance from the equator, therefore the line is not straight, because it turns north constantly.

    Yes, it is possible to draw a straight line on a globe from Chicago and end up back at Chicago, but it is not possible to draw a straight line on a flat earth from Chicago to Chicago. The line will always turn on a flat earth, but does not necessarily have to turn on a globe.

    Here's something you might find interesting, there is a line that goes almost all the way around the globe on which you can sail in a completely straight line and never hit land.

    https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2...e-sail-maphead

    Go watch the video on that site. I'll wait.

  13. #5005
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,040
    Thanks
    448
    Thanked 5,625 Times in 3,094 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147760
    Quote Originally Posted by Tambora View Post
    I can grasp that size matters.

    But are we supposed to count the oceans as a single mass unit being pulled by gravity, or does gravity pull each drop of water in the oceans individually?
    Interesting question.

    It also pulls each piece of the satellite individually.

    The "pieces" aren't as rigidly held together but they do still act as a whole. In fact, the ocean is just one piece of the Earth. The ground is pulled on by the Moon just as the ocean is. The reason you notice it pulling on the ocean is because the ocean is a liquid that can deform in the direction of the pull. If the ocean was frozen solid, the tidal forces created by the Moon would still exist but there would be no tides because the ocean couldn't move and flow.

    And, just to be technical about it, it isn't really size that matters, it's mass. Size, technically speaking, has to do with volume. Gravity doesn't care about your volume, it acts as if all of the mass was concentrated at the "center of mass", no matter how big or lopsided the body happens to be.

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 9th, 2018),Right Divider (March 9th, 2018),Tambora (March 10th, 2018)

  15. #5006
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,040
    Thanks
    448
    Thanked 5,625 Times in 3,094 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147760
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick jane View Post
    The bottom line is this, no matter where you start on the "globe" - if you go in a STRAIGHT LINE in ANY direction, you will hit the ice wall. Thee is no such thing as "going around the world" it doesn't exist and it's impossible. With or without a compass or "magnets"
    Saying it doesn't make it so, Patrick.

    There are literally thousands of things that circumnavigate the globe every couple of hours. Thousands! All day. Everyday.

    There have been hundreds of people travel all the way around the world over the last couple of centuries. Different people in different generations from different places with different equipment for different reasons all a great expense and many times at the cost of lives. These events, especially at the beginning, effected thousands upon thousands of people. Individuals, companies, banks, governments, etc, etc. All of whom kept records of one kind or another, whether they be financial records, navigational records, medical records, legal proceedings, you name it. The cacophony of evidence that these thing happened and continue to happen would be entirely impossible to fake even if someone wanted to do so which they wouldn't because there is no motive for them to do so.

    Further, the entire premise of the statement demonstrates that whomever you're getting this nonsense from is either stupid, completely ignorant or lying.

    You can travel straight east or west FOREVER and never will you get one inch closer to Antarctica. Unlike going north or south where one turns into the other if you travel far enough, east and west are forever far apart which any Christian should know full well. (Psalms 103:12)

    Clete

    P.S. Is there any chance at all that you'll be responding to any of these arguments or do you intend to just keep piling up the nonsense?

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 9th, 2018),Right Divider (March 9th, 2018),Tambora (March 10th, 2018)

  17. #5007
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,040
    Thanks
    448
    Thanked 5,625 Times in 3,094 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147760
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Ok, you're not taking into account what I just said, and you're trying to use a flat map instead of a globe. So pull out your globe this time and the string, put the end of the string on Chicago, and while keeping the string facing toward you, start heading west, keeping the string in a straight line. What happens? The string starts to dip south, until it hits the equator, then levels out, and starts heading north again (all still while heading west), hits the equator again, levels out, and ends up right back at Chicago (if you did it right. Did the line ever cross Antarctica? No. Was the line always moving west? Yes. Was the line straight? Yes.

    Now, put the end of the string back on chicago, and instead of having the line always face you, keep the equator facing you, and then keep the string at the same distance above the equator as chicago, all the way around, until you hit chicago again. Now orient the globe so that the string is facing you. Did the line ever cross Antarctica? No, it never intersected the equator, let alone Antarctica. Is the line straight? No. Is it always heading west? Yes, but in order to do so, it has to always turn to the north to stay at the same distance from the equator, therefore the line is not straight, because it turns north constantly.

    Yes, it is possible to draw a straight line on a globe from Chicago and end up back at Chicago, but it is not possible to draw a straight line on a flat earth from Chicago to Chicago. The line will always turn on a flat earth, but does not necessarily have to turn on a globe.

    Here's something you might find interesting, there is a line that goes almost all the way around the globe on which you can sail in a completely straight line and never hit land.

    https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2...e-sail-maphead

    Go watch the video on that site. I'll wait.
    If you go straight west from Chicago, you won't ever get even one inch closer to the equator than when you started the trip, (never mind Antarctica).

    And speaking of the equator, isn't that a line that goes all the way around the world without hitting Patrick's "ice wall"?

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 9th, 2018),Right Divider (March 9th, 2018),Tambora (March 10th, 2018)

  19. #5008
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,423
    Thanks
    24,070
    Thanked 6,818 Times in 4,285 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    If you go straight west from Chicago, you won't ever get even one inch closer to the equator than when you started the trip, (never mind Antarctica).

    And speaking of the equator, isn't that a line that goes all the way around the world without hitting Patrick's "ice wall"?
    That's what I said, but I did say that in order to continue moving directly west on a globe (in the northern hemisphere, probably should have clarified that), one would always have to be turning north so as to not start curving south, meaning turning right (obviously the opposite is true, on the southern hemisphere).

  20. #5009
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    13,765
    Thanks
    11,324
    Thanked 19,241 Times in 10,834 Posts

    Blog Entries
    5
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147683

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    That's what I said, but I did say that in order to continue moving directly west on a globe (in the northern hemisphere, probably should have clarified that), one would always have to be turning north so as to not start curving south, meaning turning right (obviously the opposite is true, on the southern hemisphere).
    Your statement would be true for a flat earth, but not a globe. East and west in a "straight line" never go north or south.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    Tambora (March 10th, 2018)

  22. #5010
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,423
    Thanks
    24,070
    Thanked 6,818 Times in 4,285 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Ok, so either I'm not explaining it well enough, or you're not understanding me. (Please keep in mind that I am a "globe earther", not a flat earther.)

    Take a regular map (not flat earth) and put it on a table. Draw a horizontal line anywhere below the equator (ie, parallel to the equator). Now take a map of the flat earth, and draw the same line in the southern hemisphere. Now take a globe, and do the same.

    Those three different "maps" show three different lines, but only one of them is straight, the one on the regular map. The one on the flat earth map is always curving toward north, but never reaches it. The one on the southern hemisphere of the globe is curving south, but never reaches it.

    Now go look at https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2...e-sail-maphead.

    Notice on the flattened map of the globe he uses, the line curves, but when viewed on a sphere, the line is perfectly straight. Try drawing the same line (connecting the two ends appropriately) on the flat earth map. It's not straight at all, nor is it a circle.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us