Philosophical and Scientific Arguments For Flat Earth

cosmoblog5

Deut 13: 1“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for Yahovah your Elohim is testing you to find out if you love Yahovah your Elohim with all your heart and with all your being.

Contrary to the book of James, Ebionite and Pelagian, accursed heretic and enemy of our beloved Apostle Paul, who says in the 13th verse of the 1st Chapter of his book that Yahovah does not test us, Moses makes very clear that Yahovah does indeed test us. Moses makes this very clear that through the words and actions of wicked men, Yahovah proves his people to see who really loves him and is devoted to his word. In the past few centuries our people have failed the test put before us. Our nation is in disarray. Our women rule over us. Foreigners invade our lands and inherit our fathers’ accomplishments.  There is nothing left for a decent man to live for anymore. And we deserve it. We have believed in the authority of wicked men more than Yahovah’s holy words and we are paying the price for it. Yet there is great hope as many are now receiving the Truth and returning to Scripture through the revelations of the past few years, that the Globe Cosmology is a baseless theory, a house of straw built on the foundation of CGI and Photoshop.

As I have already spoken to at great length in the section on Method and Demonstration, the Noahic Flat Earth Model is a model known to us not by Science or Observation but by Revelation. Science and observation does confirm how the Bible describes our world but it can never give us all the information we need for a complete Cosmology. We are enclosed inside of the firmament and cannot reach out far enough from the Earth to truly see a Panoramic view of our world.  This is why Solomon states with great skepticism,

 Ecc. 8: 17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

 As I have already stated, the Cosmology given by William Warren’s The Earliest Cosmologies is what I believe to be the best representation of Scripture and is the image at the introduction to this chapter.

  1. The fact that so many different Flat Earth models exist and that Atheist and Pagan Flat Earthers many times use the Biblical Flat Earth model proves the necessity for Biblical Revelation.

So what evidence do we have that we are living on a fixed plane of existence and not a sphere?

  1. First, as has already been demonstrated the “Little Piggy Cam High Altitude Balloon Flight” showing the Earth to be motionless and perfectly flat at over 121, 000 feet of altitude is a prima facie confirmation of a fixed plane Earth.

121000

  1. Second, the Chicago Skyline image shows the city of Chicago fully exposed from almost 60 miles away. According to ABC57,

“A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage. Joshua Nowicki (@StartVisiting) snapped the pic Tuesday night from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville.”

abc57

According to the Heliocentrist curvature equation of 8 inches per miles squared, 60 squared is 3, 600 multiplied by 8 inches is 28, 800 inches. Converted to feet, we have 2,400 feet of curvature. The tallest building in Chicago, the Willis Tower is 1,451 feet.  Now according to the Sphere model the Willis Tower should be behind the curvature by almost 1,000 feet, yet there it is fully before our face! The excuse the Globers give us is a special pleading fallacy. Concave adherents could just as easily excuse this as bending light.

  1. The light pattern the Sun emits on the surface of the water as it sets denotes a flat surface not a convex surface. The light pattern the setting Sun emits on the surface of water looks like this.[1]

sunsetpattern1

sunset2

sunset3

sunset4

Zeteticism DotCom points out that this is the way light looks on a flat surface not a convex surface.

  1. Samuel Rowbotham’s Salt Flats experiment has been reproduced using modern Camera technology. YouTuber, Taboo Conspiracy, published his experiment entitled, ROWBOTHAM 3 – Confirmed – Bonneville Salt Flats Test – Earth is Flat where he captured on camera a black SUV vehicle 6.6 miles away among the Flats. The Heliocentric model calculates 29 feet of curvature over this distance and yet we see the SUV maintained a consistent eye level straight ahead.suv
  1. Scientists at Texas State University and Arizona State University measured the Geography of Kansas and concluded that “Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake”.[2]
  2. If the Earth was a sphere as an observer ascends in altitude the horizon would continually fall away no matter how big the sphere was. Rob Skiba made an excellent animation of this on his YouTube page entitled A Simple Horizon Test Take 2.eyelevel

What we observe from camera footage is the flat plane model on the right. YouTube now contains an almost limitless supply of high altitude balloon footage. YouTuber Dan Dimension has recently published a video entitled Flat Earth …Huh? You think you live on a spinning what?. This video shows exactly what Skiba has animated that we do indeed live on a flat plane.

  1. We have astronomical evidence that the “Southern Hemisphere” is wider and larger than the “Northern Hemisphere” with the Solar Analemma.analemmaThe Solar Analemma is a pattern depicting the perceived altitude of the Sun at its highest point every month. The pattern above shows the pattern as it is observed from the North. The upper loop begins in June and July and the bottom marks represent December and January. The reason why the bottom loop is longer than the top loop is because on the Flat Earth model the circuit of the Sun is tighter in the Summer and Wider in the Winter. Thus we read in the famous Gleason’s New Standard Map of the World, 1892:gleason
  1. We have recorded proof that the “Southern Hemisphere” is larger and wider than the “Northern Hemisphere”. Rowbotham states,

“Surprise at the frequency and the sadness of such losses will naturally subside when it is seen that the degrees of longitude beyond the equatorial region gradually increase with the southern latitude [On the Flat Earth Model. – DS]. A false hypothesis, a merely supposed sphericity of the earth and of gradually diminishing lines of longitude on each side of the equator is the true cause of the greater number of these sad catastrophes which have so often startled and appalled the public mind. To this fallacious doctrine of rotundity may be traced not only the source of these terrible losses and sufferings, but also of the fact that mariners are unable to see the true cause of the disasters, and are therefore unable to benefit by experience, and to guard against them in future voyages. They have been led to attribute all the fearful dangers of southern waters to imaginary causes, the chief of which is the prevalence of direct and counter currents. One of the most common peculiarities in these regions is the almost constant confusion in the “reckoning;” as will be seen by the following quotations:–

“We found ourselves every day from 12 to 16 miles by observation in advance of our reckoning.” 3

260

“By our observations at noon we found ourselves 58 miles to the eastward of our reckoning in two days. ” 1

“February 11th, 1822, at noon, in latitude 65.53. S. our chronometers gave 44 miles more westing than the log in three days. On 22nd of April (1822), in latitude 54.16. S. our longitude by chronometers was 46.49, and by D.R. (dead reckoning) 47° 11´: On 2nd May (1822), at noon, in latitude 53.46. S., our longitude by chronometers was 59° 27´, and by D.R. 61° 6´. October 14th, in latitude 58.6, longitude by chronometers 62° 46´, by account 65° 24´. In latitude 59.7. S., longitude by chronometers was 63° 28´, by account 66° 42´. In latitude 61.49. S., longitude by chronometers was 61° 53´, by account 66° 38´.” 2

The commander of the United States exploring expedition, Lieutenant Wilkes, in his narrative, says that in less than 18 hours he was 20 miles to the east of his reckoning in latitude 54° 20´ S. He gives other instances of the same phenomenon, and, in common with almost all other navigators and writers on the subject, attributes the differences between actual observation and theory to currents, the velocity of which, at latitude 57° 15´ S., amounted to 20 miles a day. 3 The commanders of these various expeditions were, of course, with their education and belief in the earth’s rotundity, unable to conceive of any other cause for the differences between log and chronometer results than the existence of currents. But one simple fact is entirely fatal to such an explanation, viz., that when the route taken is east or west the same results are experienced. The water of the southern region cannot be running

261

in two opposite directions at the same time; and hence, although various local and variable currents have been noticed, they cannot be shown to be the cause of the discrepancies so generally observed in high southern latitudes between time and log results. The conclusion is one of necessity–is forced upon us by the sum of the evidence collected that the degrees of longitude in any given southern latitude are larger than the degrees in any latitude nearer to the northern centre; thus proving the already more than sufficiently demonstrated fact that the earth is a plane, having a northern centre, in relation to which degrees of latitude are concentric, and from which degrees of longitude are diverging lines, continually increasing in their distance from each other as they are prolonged towards the great glacial southern circumference…

259:3 “South Sea Voyages.” By Sir J. C. Ross, p. 96, vol. i.

260:1 “South Sea Voyages,” by Sir J. C. Ross, p. 27.

260:2 “Voyages towards the South Pole,” by Captain James Weddell.

260:3 “Condensed Navigation,” p. 130. Whittaker and Co., London.”[3]

  1. The star trails prove that the Earth is a plane of existence and not a sphere. Rowbotham, as will be explained in detail later, testified that at Zenith the Stars move in an arc of a circle as observed at Zenith from the North down as far South as Australia. If the Earth was a sphere the stars would not move in the arc of a circle, if it was spinning a star trail image would not even be possible, but arise before the observer and move in a straight line from straight ahead and then pass overhead straight behind the observer.startrails
  1. If the Earth was a sphere the observer would not need to travel all the way to the Southern Hemisphere and even to the Antarctic Circle to see the Southern Stars rotate a different direction than the stars around Polaris. All he would need to do is view Southward.

Testimonies of Authority

The following testimonies are not to suggest that all these people believe that the Earth is flat. Nor is it to suggest that operations manuals always use a Flat Earth Model. They are given to suggest that in many cases, I think I am safe to say most, a Flat Earth model is used when supposedly the truth of Heliocentrism is in essence proved by its functionality when the fact is Science predominately uses Flat Earth Geocentrism.

  1. Nasa admits their Linear Aircraft are designed to fly “over a flat, non-rotating earth.”

flatearth1

nasa2

[https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf]

  1. The FAA admits consideration of curvature to Earth produces navigational error.

Validation Of The Automatic-Flight-Inspection Instrument-Landing-System Best Fit Straight Line Application by David A. Quinet, Avionics Engineering Center School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Ohio University:

“A review of the AFIS software indicated that this initial processing took into account earth curvature. Further analysis indicated that this error is minor in computing RDH/ARDH. In fact, at four miles (the most sensitive location for the RDH calculation) the difference in altitude for earth curvature versus a flat earth is 14.10 feet. This introduces an error in the RDH calculation of 1.78 feet. In the Ohio University implementation, all values are converted to East-North-Up coordinates in a locally-level plane referenced to the runway threshold.” (Pg. 3)[4]

  1. Robert P. Comer, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc. (1984) 77, 1-21, “The tsunami mode of a flat earth and its excitation by earthquake sources”,

“Several other investigators have attacked the problem of tsunami generation with the ocean and solid earth fully coupled. Podyapolsky (1970) and Alexeev & Gusiakov (1976) considered a point earthquake source in the solid earth, which was represented by an elastic half-space; however, the accounts of their methods are rather incomplete and only a few results are illustrated. Yamashita & Sato (1974) extended a similar model to a finite, moving source, but the explanation of how they perform the key step of evaluating the residue at the ‘tsunami pole’ is omitted. And although the works just cited are all based on flat earth models, none make reference to the tsunami normal mode of a flat ocean-earth system… Ward’s results are useful and important, yet it is nonetheless also rewarding to explore tsunami normal mode excitation using a flat earth model. At the very least, two independent solutions of very similar problems can be used to check one another. Also, no significant increase in accuracy can be obtained simply by going from a flat earth model to a spherical one, since the tsunami mode eigenfunctions (unlike those of long-period seismic surface waves) do not penetrate the solid earth very deeply, and a correction for geometric spreading on a spherical, rather than flat, surface is easily applied. Of course, the geometric spreading of real tsunamis is different from either idealized case, due to the bathymetric variations (resulting in variations in wave speed) in the real oceans.” (pg. 2)[5]

  1. Professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study, Freeman Dyson admits the preferred operational model is Flat Earth:

“It is reasonable to consider the Earth as approximately uniform within a distance of a few tens of kilometers from a given point on the surface, but within this distance it is also a good approximation to consider the Earth flat. A uniform-sphere model would have no advantage over the much simpler flat-Earth model.”[6]

“We are here assuming that the flat-Earth model gives a valid description of the dynamics of earth motions in the region adjacent to the point O.”[7]

  1. Air-to-Air Combat Flight Dynamics is admittedly governed by the Flat Earth Model:

A Study Into Advanced Guidance Laws Using Computational Methods by Daniel Perh, December 2011, Naval Postgraduate School,

“For this simulation, flat earth approximations are used, as the ranges involved in air-to-air combat are relatively short as compared to tactical ballistic missiles, and a point mass model will be assumed for the flight dynamics. The following vector equations fully describe the motion dynamics of a free body in space… The equations used in (2.1) are intended for flat earth approximations. Hence they do not include terms that transform the NED frame to an earth centered inertial (ECI) frame. Those terms would be needed for simulations that require modeling of the missile flight path over a spherical, rotating earth, such as simulations of ballistic missile trajectories.” (Pgs. 9-10)[8]

Derivation Of Linear-Tangent Steering Laws By Frank M. Perkins, Guidance And Control Subdivision Electronics Division Aerospace Corporation, Air Force Report No. Ssd-Tr-66-211, Nov. 1966,

“1. FOR A FLAT EARTH The bi-linear-tangent steering law was presented in Reference 4 for a flat earth in the form:

tan 0= A +Bt/ C+Dt

(21)

where A, B, C, and D are unspecified constants.” (Pg. 14)[9]

  1. NASA admits that Optimal Guidance Law Development for an Advanced Launch System uses The Flat Earth Model: NASA, Optimal Guidance Law Development for an Advanced Launch Systemby Anthony J. Calise and Martin S. K. Leung Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 1995,

“In [2], Chandler and Smith have developed an IGM for the Saturn V vehicle. It is based on a flat Earth no-atmosphere model, and is further simplified with linear angle steering guidance.” (Pg. 2)

“In [13], Jacobson and Powers have developed an explicit guidance scheme also for low thrust space flight. It is basically a retargeting procedure and uses an analytic solution for the inertially fixed and constant acceleration flight. Recently, Feeley and Speyer [14] have used regular perturbations on the expansion of the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation, and have applied it to the launch vehicle guidance problem for exoatmospheric flight. The approach requires an analytic zero order solution and quadrature evaluation. The analytic solution is again based on a flat Earth, no-atmosphere approximation, and the neglected dynamics are introduced as perturbations.” (Pg. 3)

“Sec. 2 presents the formulation of the launch vehicle trajectory optimization problem, which includes the equations of motion and the vehicle aerodynamic and propulsion models that are based on a generic model of the ALS. The results for two purely analytical approaches are documented in Sec. 3. The first is a singular perturbation approach using an energy state approximation and a 2-state model. The second is a regular perturbation approach based on the zero order solution for a flat Earth no-atmosphere assumption.” (Pg. 4)

“Assuming that the dominant forces on the launch vehicle are thrust and gravity, an attempt is made to treat the atmospheric effects as a perturbation effect. To further simplify the problem, spherical Earth effects are also considered as perturbations (these effects are only apparent when the vehicle reaches orbital speed near the end of the flight). The result is similar to the maximum horizontal speed transfer problem in [33] for a flat Earth no atmosphere situation.” (Pg. 33)[10]

  1. John Hopkins’ Journal admits Missile Guidance uses The Flat Earth Model,

Modern Homing Missile Guidance Theory and Techniques by Neil F. Palumbo, Ross A. Blauwkamp, and Justin M. Lloyd,

“For simplicity, we assume a flat-Earth model with an inertial coordinate system that is fixed to the surface of the Earth.”[11]

Force, Level Effectiveness Modeling for the Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile by Steven M. Biemer,

“Tomahawk trajectories are typically represented as a set of straight and level flight profiles, each at different altitudes, over flat terrain.” (pg. 60)[12]

  1. The Military admits that their Antennas used for high-power microwave systems are designed to function in The Flat Earth Model,

Propagation of Electromagnetic Fields Over Flat Earth by Joseph R. Miletta Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate,

It is assumed that the transmitting antenna and the target (or receiver) are located above, but near the surface of a flat idealized earth (constant permittivity, ε, and conductivity, σ) ground.”(Pg. 1)[13]

  1. Recently the YouTuber Jeranism had an Iowa Flight Instructor tell him in an interview that he believed the Earth was flat and all his pilot buddies do as well but can’t say anything due to employment. His exact words were,

“I’ve gotten calls like crazy from other Pilots…and they all admit and they all say yep, they see the same things and they say the problem is you’re never going to get a current airline guy to admit it because of risk of losing their job.”[14]

  1. Facebook member Flat Earth Science and the Bible posted a list of professionals who have admitted the Earth is Flat. I re-posted it on my blog at the writer’s permission in my article, Professionals Who Have Confirmed Flat Earth.[15]
  1. Continental drift proves the Earth is floating on water. Thus, the Flat Earth. The Globe Earth Tectonic plate explanation is simply proof by assertion.

The Earth is Stationary

  1. The vertical cannon experiment proves the Earth is not moving. David Wardlaw Scott mentioned this experiment in his famous work Terra Firma. We have a mini version of it by YouTuber JG24FanUK in his video Cannon shot straight up into the air.[16]

Now I count the projectile’s journey to be 10 seconds. Seeing these boys maintain that they are in the UK that means at their location the Earth’s rotation is 600 mph.[17] Now how far has the earth rotated in the 10 second span? Well, let’s consult the mph/feet per second calculator.[18] Here we see that 600 mph is 880 feet per second. 10 seconds multiplied by 880 feet is 8, 800 feet. That’s over a mile and a half!  Yet the projectile lands right next to them as if the Earth isn’t moving at all.

  1. Polaris and the Constellations have never changed their position.
  1. The Ancient Sundial at the 13th Century Konark Sun Temple still tells time perfectly.konark_sun_temple_-_wheel_of_the_chariot
  1. Cladius Ptolemy’s work accurately predicted eclipses and where the shadow of the moon would strike the Earth for hundreds of years on the basis of a Geocentric Earth.
  1. The Michelson–Morley experiment proved the Earth isn’t moving and Einstein even admitted it. Einstein stated,

“While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson’s experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.”[19]

  1. East to West and West to East Airplane flights take the same time proving the Earth isn’t moving.
  1. We read in McGraw-Hill, Encyclopedia Of Science & Technology, 10th Edition, “Ballistics”,

“For very long-range missiles, the approach of celestial mechanics with nonrotating Earth-centered coordinates is used.”

[1] This material is taken from Zeteticism DotCom, Zeteticism (FLAT EARTH) Vol. 5: Zetetic Water and Sunset Light Reflection Patterns

[2] Mark Fonstad, William Pugatch, and Brandon Vogt, Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake: http://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html

[3] Samuel Birley Rowbotham, Zetetic Astronomy, [1881]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za42.htm

A modern truth seeker can find these quotations used by Rowbotham at the Internet Archive Website, A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions by Captain Sir James Clark Ross Vol. I (London, John Murray, 1847), 96-97

https://archive.org/stream/voyagediscoveryVol1Ross#page/96/mode/2up

[4]https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/avn/flightinspection/onlineinformation/pdf/07-10BFSL_Final.pdf

See also Assessing The Validity Of Using Actual Navigation Performance (Anp) Information For Supporting Designated Flight Inspection Operations by Michael F. DiBenedetto, Ph.D., Senior Research Program Engineer Avionics Engineering Center School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Ohio University , Appendix pg. 32-36

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/avn/flightinspection/onlineinformation/pdf/TM_08-12_AVN_ANP_Final_Report.pdf

[5] http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/77/1/1.full.pdf

[6] Freeman J. Dyson, Selected Papers of Freeman Dyson with Commentary, 491-492

[7] Ibid., 493

[8] http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/10670/11Dec_Perh.pdf?sequence=1

[9] http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/643209.pdf

[10] http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950019785.pdf

[11] Johns Hopkins Apl Technical Digest, Volume 29, Number 1 (2010) pg. 46

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/td/td2901/palumbo_homing.pdf

[12] Johns Hopkins Apl Technical Digest, Volume 16, Number 1 (1995)

http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/views/pdfs/V16_N1_1995/V16_N1_1995_Biemer.pdf

[13] http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2001/ARL-TR-2352.pdf

[14] Jeranism, A Pilot Calls jeranismRAW – Says He Wants To Test Flat Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP7RZIyxzx0

[15] https://southernisraelite.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/professionals-who-have-confirmed-flat-earth/

[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIBCgKz243c

[17] http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-fast-are-you-spinning-around-earths-axis-1508810529

[18] http://www.calculateme.com/Speed/MilesperHour/ToFeetperSecond.htm

[19] “How I created the theory of relativity”, by Albert Einsetin, Physics Today, August 1982, page 46: http://wwwphysics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2011/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s