The Biblical Flat Earth: A Response To The Principle

The Principle Movie hit theaters October 24, 2014 and certainly called into question the helio-centric cosmological model. The premise of the movie is based upon the position of geo-centrism which holds that the earth, while it is still a ball, is the center of the universe and is not spinning.

Mark Wyatt from the website spoke out against the flat earth position in an article entitled "Flat Earth is NOT the Answer." I wish to address it here.

The first statement reads:

"There has been an explosion of activity around flat earth around the time that The Principle was screened in the Chicago area in October 2014." 

My response:

That is hardly true. According to a Google trends search the data shows search volume nearly "flat" to previous searches years before up until the October release date of the film and beyond. Here is a screenshot of the trend by volume, yearly including the month the film was released:

In fact, the "explosion" that is seen is occurring in June 2015 and peaks in January 2016 (around the time B.O.B. and Tila Tequila came out in support for the flat earth and caused it to trend on Twitter and other social media). So rather than begin the criticism of the flat earth honestly, they instead, narcissiticly, arrogantly, and falsely imply that their movie was the basis of the "explosion of activity" regarding the subject.

The second statement begins with an objection:

"Regardless of why this is happening, it is clear that flat earth is not the answer to any issues in cosmology, nor to social or any other issues in our time (or ever for that matter). Flat earth is demonstrably wrong, even using some of the 'proofs' offered by flat earth proponents.  For instance, some flat earth proponents claim that there exist no images of the entire (face) of earth from space, only composite images (i.e., pieced together from partial images). This may have been true 5 years ago, but since at least 2011, the Elektro-L satellites from Russia have been transmitting regular non-composite images from space. Some flat earth proponents then argue that these are still composite in the sense that they are combined images from different wavelengths, but this effects only the color of the image, not the shape."

My response:

I find it ironic that they admit that the images of the earth were composites 5 years ago but since 2011 they have become authentic! In the article they referenced it contains a still image and a GFI image. Here are both images:

The first thing I would like to point out is how the earth appears as a perfect circle while Neil Degrasse Tyson claims the earth is bulging and is actually pear-shaped.

Secondly, where are the stars?

Thirdly, where is the space debris? Pardon me for pointing this out but according to NASA there is more than 500,000 pieces of debris in orbit which "travel at speeds up to 17,500 mph, fast enough for a relatively small piece of orbital debris to damage a satellite or a spacecraft." They even provide an image portraying this here:

In addition, they claim there are 1,100 other satellites still in operation and 2,600 that are orbiting and no longer work. How come this particular satellite doesn't show any of its brothers and sisters?

Also, consider the traveling speed a geostationary orbit. According to Wiki, "a geostationary orbit can only be achieved at an altitude very close to 22,236 miles, and directly above the Equator. This equates to an orbital velocity of 1.91 mi/s or a period of 1,436 minutes, which equates to almost exactly one sidereal day or 23.934461223 hours." It seems odd to me that the geostationary velocity is 1.91 miles per second while the actual spin of the earth at the equator is 1,040 mph. If you translate 1,040 mph into miles per second it becomes 0.29 miles per second. So that is 1.91 miles per second (satellite velocity) vs. 0.29 miles per second (earth's rotation speed at the Equator). This satellite is actually spinning much faster than the earth is! The GIF image does not reflect this discrepancy whatsoever. 

The International Space Station travels at a speed of 17,500 mph which is 22 times faster than the speed of sound. Here is a short video depicting how fast this is.

Also altitude temperatures start to rise at about 52.8 miles (85km) until they reach the Kármán line which is 62 miles (100km) high. After this line, the heat abruptly increases rising rapidly to 124.2 miles (200km) whereby it starts to level off. The inner radiation belt boundary goes down to roughly 124.2 miles high 200 km above the earth. Temperatures vary, depending on sun activity, but can reach as high as 2500°C!

The only elements in the periodic table that can withstand 2500°C are carbon, niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, and osmium. Other than carbon, these metals are very heavy and are extremely conductive to heat and most are very ductile when heated. Carbon even has the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials! So, if you want to cook something efficiently, than a space capsule made out of graphite would be perfect.

Apart from nothing working at the minimum 1112 degrees Fahrenheit (600°C) due to thermal expansion of the materials (iron glows red hot at 932 degrees Fahrenheit/500°C), some of the electronic components like lead, zinc, and epoxy resin would not just burn out, but melt.

None of NASA’s orbiting objects are completely covered in a layer of Near Infrared Radiation reflecting materials, only a bit of aluminum foil for the Hubble Telescope. This foil would still to stop conduct the heat from the the other materials of the telescope, especially the infra-red absorbing dark areas, copper foil, plastic coated wires, and tarnished metal; and that same aluminum foil would be reflecting light back onto the telescope itself.

Why is it now that we are trust another "image" given these descrepancies? Again, it is very easy to photo-shop these images which do not bear out the information that NASA has given us concerning the earth, it's debris, and others factors.

According to the Russian Space website this satellite was "designed to give Russian meteorologists the ability to watch the entire disk of the planet" and to be "in geostationary orbit 22369.363 miles (36,000km) above the Equator (interesting that they used the term "disk" here). I would like to point out the issue of the Van-Allen belts regarding this. According to NASA there are two radiation belts (they supposedly even discovered a third one here) which NASA even admits are issues regarding development and sustainability of rockets TODAY!

The article goes onto its second objection to the flat earth by saying:

"Another way to tell the earth ‘s surface is round is to take a look at photographs looking across large bodies of water. In a youtube video, a flat earth proponent, Terry Robinson claims to prove flat earth using such photographs. He makes some errors in his calculations. In one instance, he claims to show a photograph from “the airport” in Kauai looking across the water at Oahu, and claims using a digital protractor that he should not be able to see Oahu at all or maybe just the very tip of the highest peak. He claims that the airport (taken to be Linhue airport ) is about 50’ in elevation, but still he starts his digital protractor at sea level and illustrates line of sight passing above Oahu. He also claims that Oahu is about 108 miles away (center to center of the island).

In reality.  Linhue airport  is 153’ above sea level. This difference (103’)is a very big difference to horizon visibility.  Measuring approximately from Linhue airport to the highest peak on Oahu (on the near side of Oahu from Kauai) on Google maps indicates about 83 miles (and this includes the curvature of the earth, which adds close to a mile). To be conservative, we will keep this distance."

My response:

Here is the video that they were responding to in their objection:

Using their estimated figures of 153 feet of elevation and 82.85 miles in distance across and using the same curvature calculator we get this image:

So the only thing that should be visible are the mountains that are higher than 3,056 feet. The first thing that I will point out is that rather than rounding up to 83 miles in distance, I stayed at their estimate which was 82.35 miles. In addition, they used two different figures. The fist figure used was 3,070 feet and then they went on to say that taking into "account for the earth’s curvature, then the observer will be able to see anything above 2,980 feet." Why do you they have two different numbers? The curvature calculator already took into account the curvature when they plugged the figures in.

Secondly, while they used 83 miles vs. 82.35 and there are slight differences in the results, it still doesn't account for the AMOUNT of surface area seen in either of the photos here.

This picture shows the entire mountain RANGE not merely the tips of mountains. There are even valleys depicted in this image. My question is simply this: at which point of these arrows represents 3,056 feet or higher? That is what is being argued here. We are not to be able to see anything lower than 3,056 feet of elevation! Therefore, we are either looking at an amazing amount of TIPS of the mountains ridges OR we are looking at the entire mountain range itself including dips, valleys, crevices, and even the base of the mountain itself! 

Also, compare this image of the Waianae Range of the same Island. See any similarities?

In addition, I would challenge The Principle supporters to explain the Chicago skyline which demonstrates the flat earth.

I would also like for "The Principle" to respond to these:

From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet,  Mount Foraker is seen 120 miles away. Mount Foraker’s 17,400 summit should covered by 7,719 feet of curvature and yet we are seeing quite large amounts of the entire mountain!

In 2003, using topographical geodetic surveys covering over 80,000 square miles, it was determined that Kansas has a flatness ratio of 0.9997 over the entire state while the average pancake, precisely measured using a confocal laser microscope, comes in at 0.957, making Kansas thereby literally flatter than a pancake.

In addition, The New York City skyline, the Island of Capraia, Island of Elba, the statute of Liberty, St. Helena Island and various other sights are seen from great distances. None of this would be possible if the earth were a ball.

I would challenge Mark and everyone regarding the geocentric position to demonstrate that first, the Bible teaches that the earth is a ball. Secondly, rather than fighting off example after example of evidence that demonstrates no curvature, how about providing your own evidence for a ball without using pictures from NASA? It appears that you folks have been so busy being defensive that you have forgotten to provide any evidence for the curve in the first place? By all means, we, as Christian and Biblical flat earthers, are waiting!

I will conclude this by saying, the Principle Movie is NOT the answer!

Let God be true and every man a liar. 

No comments:

Post a Comment