Administrator

Quasiluminous...

Administrator

Eric Dubay thinks I am a shill. He thinks I get paid by someone for my work. This is quite hypocritical.
I do not get paid by anybody, I do not work for the government. I do not correspond to anybody within the government. I work for the establishment of the future Kingdom of God. I fulfill Isaiah 45:13 as the “Servant” in whom God has raised up... “I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.” Eric Dubay, on the other hand, works for price. He sells his fallacious flat earth propaganda in the form of books. Wisdom is justified in her children. Steven Joseph Christopher 
Administrator

This post was updated on .
but he should know I did not pay a penny for that add. acenci did. :) start at 49 seconds...no, that's not creepy.... 
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Administrator

he's getting desperate, hahahaha he has to talk about me now. 
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Administrator

he's got nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. when his shame reaches the highest level, he's gonna wanna change his name. 
Administrator

This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Steve
This person suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. He simply does not understand that he is a product of creation. Because of hatred, he is blind to his creator. He cannot see the forest for the trees in deciphering what he thinks to be symbols of the deception. Sadly, he is a blind teacher leading the blind into a FEMA Detention Center. He does not possess Kingdom Consciousness. He thinks Judgment Day already happened. (It didn't, trust me.) My concern is for the lost souls that listen to him, for they will share in his fate. My concern is for the people who have not enough faith to believe in me and the concavity of earth, and will be taken away down the alley by this blind fool and be left out of the Kingdom where they will gnash their teeth in regret. I am the good shepherd, and it irks me to see this. I told him to Skype me so I can confront him face to face. But alas I think he will cower away. I was waiting to see how he would respond to my chastening video against him. And his heart is stiff hard as a rock, neck as still as a board. http://prntscr.com/75df5t 
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Administrator

RollingThunder42, another bandwagon flattie opportunist...calling me a shill and a psycho...having the victim complex, dunning krugarish, like his video is so important...sigh..

CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Administrator

I really appreciate you, Joseph. 
Administrator


Intuition? Intuition?? Steven, you are right. The guy is a fucking idiot!!! And a coward if he won't face you, and for throwing you off his forum for simply disagreeing with him. Doesn't the Bible call these type of people "willfully ignorant"?
If all he has is his intuition for assuming the earth is flat, then he is truly a fucking idiot and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I worked in a surveying/engineering firm and the earth is definitely spherical. The only question is whether it is concave or convex. Perhaps Dubay needs to go to school and get him some edumacation? Or at least use some real data rather than just how he feels about regarding the shape of the earth?! LOL! 
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Acenci,
Thank you for your detailed comment, and your hearty welcome to this forum. Thanks also for the information re dubay's forum. That will save me any time I might have thought to waste there. I probably would have gotten banned myself sooner or later seeing I too am a historical revisionist, former Christian, and former flatearther. Like you, I too believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. However, as I learn of Eric's past actions, that predisposition to doubt has turned to conclusions. If Eric has indeed had interactions with those like Steve who has undoubtedly presented the truth of the concave earth to him, which has been rejected, then Eric has no excuse.The bible calls this willful ignorance. I guess the proper term is a 'fool,' not an idiot. I say this, because I myself did not have the benefit of interaction with concaveearthers or the concave earth model. A little about myself. I have a B.Sc. in Engineering, and a master's degree in theology. I was also a pastor for a number of years. About five years ago I became interested in cosmology again. I knew that geocentricity was correct. Then I became intrigued with the hollow earth concept having read Jan Lamprecht's book, "Hollow Planets." Then Kevin Taylor's book, "Land of No Horizon." From there I discovered the Flat Earth Society forum, although I never participated in it. So for the last 23 years I was a flatearth advocate. However, with my background in surveying and engineering I knew that any surveys done in the southern hemisphere would either prove or disprove flat earth theory. So I ordered James Clark Ross's book, "A Voyage of Discovery and research in the southern and Antarctic regions, during the years 183943." Tom, the shill administrator, had accurately stated that his voyage was some 66,000 miles thus implying that this proved the flat earth model. I was going to trace his voyage by mapping out the distances every time that a latitude and longitude was mentioned. I got about 200 pages in and came across a point where they sailed due east for about 22 days holding about 47 degrees south latitude. This was the conclusive point for me. They either sailed about 2000 miles on a roundearth or 8000 miles on a flatearth. This equated to a sailing speed of either 6 knots or 20 knots, when the average sailing speed at the time was 68 knots. So, if Mr. dubay wants to believe the earth is flat because of his intuition, then fine. He is an idiot. However, if he uses actual data to prove his point he will then come to another conclusion. Thanks for the interaction. 
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Banned User

In reply to this post by acenci
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

I wouldn't put pressure on, IronMan. Flat earthers might run away! That's why many of them will seek out Steven's info, to evade the pressure from other confused flat earth proponents. Eventually everyone will recognize the inherent truth. At least Andrea is contributing here. That's just my perspective though. 
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by IrOnMaN
Acenci et al,
I've attached the relevant file from James Clark Ross' voyage. Note that he records latitude, longitude, and distance between his locations. You can use spherical trigonometry to calculate the distance on a spherical earth and compare it with the distance on a flat discshaped earth. I have done the calculations to the right of his columns, and get essentially the same distances as he has measured. I have also uploaded a simple spreadsheet I put together which will calculate both spherical distances as well as distances on a supposed flatearth. Note that the speed of the average sailing ship at that time was between 68 knots. While some clipper ships could attain 20 knots, this was only for short durations. Therefore the logical conclusion is that Ross' distances correspond with a sphericalshaped earth, concave that is. :o) James_Clark_Ross_July_20Aug_05,_1840.pdf 
Here was how I changed my mind from being a flatearther to concave. This was what I wrote to a friend about a year ago...
Wow! Did I have my head blown apart yesterday! The Bible is right. Seek, and ye shall find. After several years of being on this path of questioning commonly held views of cosmology, from heliocentrism, geocentrism, hollow earth, flat earth, and now the concave earth nonEuclidean space geometry. By George, I think we finally have figured it out! Thanks to your questions and interaction! Let me document how I came to my current understanding. I have to tell someone. No one else would believe it! Your question on the Tamarack Mines experiment as it turns out is crucial to the correct understanding. I have read over 200 pages of the first volume of James Clark Ross’s voyage. My intent on reading it was to prove that the earth is a flat disk shape. If I could show that James Clark Ross’s measured distances were more representative of a flat disk shaped earth as opposed to a spherical shaped earth – the proof would be in the bag. All along I have been searching for some means of an accurate distance across the face of the earth to prove or disprove the sphere/disk shape. I thought that after I had read the whole book, both volumes, and recorded every latitude and longitude reading he took, and then calculate the distances for both a FE and a RE and compare them that this would be the method. Well, as it turns out, I don’t have to read any further. I have the proof necessary – NOT to prove a flat disk shape, but rather to DISPROVE it! Here it is. See the attached chart which is his Appendix III. It records his sailing from Kerguelen Island (French Southern & Antarctic Lands) on his way to Van Diemen Land. I don’t think this is the same as Tasmania as the latitude is too far west – however, all the Google references refer to it as Tasmania. It is the perfect comparison because on a flat disk earth in the southern hemisphere the lines of longitude continue to diverge, and thus the distances will be much longer than they would be on a spherical earth. And since during these sixteen days Ross tried to maintain the same degree of latitude (4748 degrees South) and sail due east, it is the perfect distance to compare. You will notice in the attached chart that between each two places where he takes a latitude & longitude reading that he also records the “Distance run” in miles – presumably nautical miles (which equals 1.852 km). I developed a calculator which calculates distances on a flat disk shaped earth and compares it to distances on a spherical shaped earth (using spherical trigonometry). Note the two columns penciled in on the right of the chart. On a flat disk the distance Ross would have travelled is 8006 n.m. whereas on a spherical earth it is only 2260 n.m. Note that Ross’s estimate of 2251 n.m is only 0.4% off my calculated distances (with rounding). Over the sixteen days of straight sailing, assuming they sailed at night as well as during the day, they either sailed 500 miles per day (FE) or 141 miles per day (RE). This amounts to a speed of 20.8 knots FE (nautical miles per hour) or 5.9 knots RE. What can we deduce from this? Here was my line of thought, and the possibilities: 1) That James Clark Ross was lying and he made up these numbers or fudged them afterwards. I checked to see if I could find any record of Ross being a freemason. I know that both south pole explorers, Roald Amundsen and Robert F. Scott, were freemasons and thus could have been involved in a plot to fake a ‘south pole.’ http://www.mastermason.com/wilmettepark/wellknownmasons.html Even explorers Ernest Shackelton, and Admiral Richard E. Byrd who were both involved in Antarctic expeditions were freemasons, but no obvious record for Ross. 2) That these numbers are correct. I then checked the average speed of sailing ships. Check out this article “Are Modern Ships Slower Than Sailing Ships? Probably Not.” http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2012/09/aremodernshipsslowerthansailingshipsprobablynot/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_sailing_vessels http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/antarctic_ships/erebus_terror_antarctica.htm Even though some fast speeds of the clipper ships were 16 and 17 knots, the average speed even of these ships was more like 5 to 8 knots. Thus it would seem that the distances which Ross recorded are indeed correct. 3) If the earth then is not a flat disk, and not a sphere why does it have distances that appear to be spherical? I then looked at possible explanations for alternate shapes. The lambert azimuthal equalarea projection would explain the distances found in the southern hemisphere, but it does not fit the pacific ocean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_azimuthal_equalarea_projection I then stumbled across this thread on the Flat Earth forum, “Impossible geometric requirements for a flat earth.” http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58160.0#.U5CD5_ldVx0 Levi Dettwyler It would seem to me that there simply can't exist any model for a flat earth that would avoid the problems of not stretching the continents / oceans so much that it would be noticeable (travel times and distances would be all out of whack), significantly interfering with routes that RE people calculate based on a RE (the differing geometry and implications for angles on a sphere and a flat plane), and having airplanes regularly flying off the edge of the earth. Any map of a flat earth must avoid all three of these things, and possibly more that I haven't thought of. It's simply not possible for any such configuration to exist. If you make Antarctica a wall of ice about the perimeter, suddenly travel times from South America to Africa increase 23 fold from what a RE person would expect (compare the circumferences at the south ends of a round earth and a flat earth map like the one on the wiki). If you go with this sort of map, suddenly all flights from Hawaii to China go missing, and then some. It seems quite impossible to come up with any sort of flat earth that would not run into at least one of those problems. By avoiding one of them, you exacerbate the other, and viceversa. In other words, in order for a flat earth to be plausible in today's society, you can't split apart continents in ways that would cause a normal REbased flight path to go off the edge, NOR can you skew the continents such that the sizes and separation between the continents would cause significant ETA discrepancies for planes, boats, and cars (remember, the rest of the world thinks the earth is round). The map currently on the wiki and the one I linked to here both fail to meet all of these requirements, and are thus in essence complete failures and wholly implausible. There's the slice from poletopole method which creates huge problems with airplanes flying off the edge of the earth, and then there's the open up like an orange method, which creates huge problems with the distance between places and the time needed to get there. People (specifically, airlines; you know, the ones paying for every mile of commercial airplane flight?) would notice almost immediately eitherway. We have not seen any such reactions on the scale we would expect to find them. Therefore, the earth should be round. The foundation of this argument is essentially based in the fact that a sphere and a flat plane have very different geometric properties apparent to anything projected onto their surfaces. A sphere is continuous (you can never walk off the "edge"), and can't be lain flat without stretching and compressing certain areas. You can prove that a sphere has geometries incompatible with a flat plane by drawing triangles on each. On a sphere, you can draw a triangle with three 90º angles. On a flat plane, the best you can get is three 60º angles. Attempting to transfer a triangle from a sphere to a flat plane would cause substantial warping and skewing, and viceversa. I was actually very surprised that nothing about even something as simple as planes flying off the edge of the earth was brought up in the wiki or the FAQs. Levi Dettwyler Quote from: sceptimatic on April 04, 2013, 09:17:15 AM No planes would ever get near an edge to fall off and no planes would be silly enough to be going that way anyway as they would simply freeze up and fall out of the sky. You completely missed the point. Read the first post again (all of it; yes, that includes clicking on the link and looking at the map!). Or, alternatively, keeping with the tradition of the flat earth society to use philosophy and logic to expose the reality of the natural world, here's a logical breakdown (a rough proof) demonstrating in two ways that the earth is not flat: Axiom 1: Most people think the earth is a sphere. Axiom 2: People that think the earth is a sphere plan navigation as if the earth is a sphere. Axiom 3: A flat earth has a definite edge. Axiom 4: A sphere has no edge or edges. Axiom 5: Any edge that intersects the flight plan of a plane will cause that plane to not complete its flight as planned. Axiom 6: Significant deviations from observed reality and expected reality are usually noticed and popularized. Lemma 1: Spherical geometries and flat planar geometries are incompatible with oneanother, and produce significant perturbations when projecting the surface of one onto the other. This can be proven by comparing angles of equilateral triangles. Assume the earth is flat. Based on Axioms 1 and 2, it follows that most people plan navigation as if the earth is a sphere. Since spheres have no edges, it follows that most people plan navigation as if the earth does not have edges. Since we assume the earth is flat, the earth has a definite edge. If (Case A) the earth is split vertically between continents, it follows that there exist many flight plans that intersect the edge of the earth. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that modern air travel would not be possible, as a huge number of flights would not make it to their destinations as planned (plus the pilot and everyone on the plane would clearly see the edge of the earth and report it). Additionally, by Axiom 6, these deviations should be wellknown and documented (in other words, it should be wellknown that if you want to fly between continent A and continent B, where A and B are separated on a round earth map by the edge of the real flat earth, you will not be able to make such a flight as planned; this website shows that flights happen between continents all the time, so this is being tested every single day). Otherwise (Case B), if the earth is split at either pole, it follows by simple geometry that land near the center of the flat earth and near the edge of the flat earth would deviate significantly from what would be expected if the earth was a sphere. Thus, since most people plan navigation as if the earth is a sphere, it is trivial to see that travel times, distances, and costs would deviate significantly from expected values for much of the earth's area. By Axiom 6, such deviations should be wellknown and documented. Since the deviations described in Case A are not wellknown or documented, it follows that Case A is false. Likewise, since the deviations described in Case B are not wellknown or documented, it follows that Case B is false. Thus, a flat earth cannot be split at either pole, nor can it be split vertically between the continents. Assuming there are no other sensible ways to split a sphere (along the equator doesn't work, since that would divide the continents in half!), it follows that there do not exist any way of the known arrangement of continents being represented on a flat earth. Therefore, the earth is not flat. ∎ TL;DR: If the earth has an edge between continents, then a huge number of people would know about it, since lots of flights take place between continents. If not, then you're skewing the continents too much for it to have gone unnoticed for so long. Another way to demonstrate that the earth is not flat is through Lemma 1. From Axioms 1 and 6, it follows that the expected arrangement of continents can be nondisruptively projected onto the surface of a sphere. From Lemma 1, it follows that the expected arrangement of continents cannot be nondisruptively projected onto the surface of a flat plane. It follows from Axiom 6 that the earth is not flat. ∎ TL;DR: Geometry shows that it is impossible to draw a flatearth map that does not misrepresent the observed and expected sizes of and distances between continents. Levi Dettwyler Note to flatearth believers that are unfamiliar with these types of arguments: an "Axiom" is something that you assume to be true. The argument doesn't work if you can demonstrate a critical axiom to be false, but with the axioms I've chosen, that is going to be very hard to do. A "Lemma" is like a smaller argument that is easy to demonstrate the truthfulness of (slight abuse of notation here; don't kill me). In order to address my argument, you have to either demonstrate that one of my axioms is misguided OR that I made a logical jump that doesn't make sense, in which case, you have to quote the jump I made and say why A does not necessarily imply B, where A is the "if" part and B is the "then" part, e.g.: Since A, B. If A then B. Because of A, it follows that B. Note that in the above post, I gave two different arguments. Homesick Martian 100 years ago a german mathematician developed a geometry that allows a "flat" earth. He described the surface of earth as something he called a "total plane",having no edges, no center, and yet no curvature. I recently tried to read his book. Very heavy stuff. Levi Dettwyler That would seem to contradict Lemma 1, unless he's using noneuclidean geometry, in which case it's irrelevant, since my argument assumes the validity of euclidean geometry for a problem like this. If you decide to reject euclidean geometry for this problem, then it doesn't really matter, since pretty much everything goes out the window at that point, and we're left floundering about with the problem of whether or not the people making these sorts of measurements are lying to us or not. If you accept the validity of euclidean geometry for this problem, then my arguments should hold, unless I made a legitimate error somewhere or was just lazy in explaining it. Homesick Martian The guy I'm talking about rejects Euclidian geometry, because it imples the notion of infinity, which, according to him, is selfcontradictory. He tries to prove, that only Riemann's geometry is real, because it is the only geometry, where infinities do not occur. If he is right, you made a flaw by "just assuming the validity of Euclidian geometry". But that's not the view of the common flat earther. You prefer the easy prey. Levi Dettwyler Well, like I said, if someone's going to reject euclidean geometry, then there isn't really much I can do for them, since pretty much anything is possible at that point, so it isn't really useful. We observe that our everyday lives comply with what euclidean geometry says we should observe, so it isn't that much of a jump to induct that it should be valid for discussing the shape of the earth (or at least, less of a jump than using any other geometric framework without substantial evidence). Levi Dettwyler Wait, I'm a moron. It doesn't matter whether or not they "accept" euclidean geometry, because they can just prove it to themselves. Take a ball, and have it represent the earth. Draw a line from the north pole straight down to the equator, then another one 1/4th of the way along the equator, and then straight back up to the north pole. It's a triangle with three 90º angles! Next they realize that this simply can't be drawn on a flat piece of paper. Now just scale everything up by about 100 million, and the same principle applies to the earth. Homesick Martian I should remind you here, that I'm not talking about a view anyone holds on this forum, but about a book I'm currently reading written by a German mathematician in the 20s, and I myself haven't made my mind up how much of a crank he was (is this good English?). It is, anyway, the most interesting flat earth theory I've encountered so far. Ernst Barthel? Yep. Homesick Martian All these problems disappear at once, if you would realize 3 things. 1. Earth is flat. 2. You're allways in the center. 3. You can never reach the edge. If it's not the kind of answer, you are comfortable to discuss, it is (historically) the answer you have got. And those flat earth maps, everything has been said, that could be said about it. Levi Dettwyler Actually, that still leaves both problems, with the first one just being in a slightly different form. For one, it would imply that there is a direction that you can fly in that would result in you effectively leaving the known world. Like I said earlier, this would still cause a huge number of planes to vanish, even if they aren't going off the edge. They would either have to turn around in utter confusion (since they would have thought they were just flying around the earth), or they would have gone far enough to not be able to make it back with the fuel they have, so they would be lost. In addition to not solving the commercial airline problem, it doesn't address the fact that the expected spherical geometries of continents would not match the geometries of the continents on this flat world. Everyone THINKS the earth is round, so they expect to be able to do things like make triangles with three 90º angles. If the earth is indeed flat, then it would force the continents to be warped from their expectations. You can't project the surface of a sphere onto a flat plane without distorting its proportions. Homesick Martian You still view "flat" and "round" in an Euclidian way. I have not yet reached the part where Barthel proves that earth is a "Total Plane" and therefore haven't yet understood what that even means. I'm still struggling with his proof that Euclidian geometry is contradictory. But obviously earth is something like the middle plane of the universe. Since it follows a Riemann geometry it can be a closed surface and yet be without curvature, so he assertains. The same maps, that apply to RE model also apply to Barthel's model. The way I present that here makes the thing look quite trivial, for RG is a well known thing. But I speak about a book of some hundreds highly abstract pages, most of which I haven't read yet. In fact his reasoning is rather deep and more challenging than I aspected. Levi Dettwyler Actually, I'm not anymore. I'm viewing it from the perspective of you can prove this to yourself by drawing a triangle on a ball. You don't need Euclidean geometry to tell you that it's impossible. You can prove that it's impossible right in front of your own eyes. Find a ball, draw a line from the north pole down to the equator, then another one around 1/4th of the equator, then back up to the north pole again. A triangle containing 3 90º angles. It is impossible to draw this shape on a flat piece of paper. Thus, you can't project the surface of a sphere onto a flat plane without severely distorting it, because there are certain shapes that can exist on the surface of the ball in your hand that cannot exist on the flat piece of paper in front of you. Apply this concept to the earth, and boom. The flat earth is impossible, lest we would have noticed the severe deviations in continent arrangement and shape from our expectations of a round earth. http://www.flightradar24.com/11.81,38.61/2 http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49558.msg1262153.html#msg1262153 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route 4) This then led me to Lactantius and the work of Ernst Barthel on the Flat Earth forum: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52576.0#.U5CERPldVx1 Lactantius is probably Rolf Keppler (descendant of Johannes Kepler) from Germany. His website is http://www.rolfkeppler.de/ and you will probably want to use the Google translation tool to translate his many pages it if you don’t know German. His research is based on German thinker and philosopher, Ernst Barthel, which is based on nonEuclidean space – an incredible concept. However, given Occam’s Razor theory, it does explain all the evidence! That is why the moderators of the flat earth forum left and started another website. As Lactantius correctly observed, they were paid trolls trying to expound the incorrect flat earth model. So the universe is self contained within the confines of a concave spherical nonEuclidean geometry which is flat, just not a disk, and like a mobius strip curves back into itself !! Who’d of thought? No wonder there has been confusion down through the ages. This explains how eclipses work. Why there is a seeming dark body in the sky which has been called Nibiru. It explains the sometimes retrograde motion of the planets. And it also is a killer explanation on why there are no extraterrestrials! ! I can finally rest on knowing the truth. Now I just have to translate Ernest Barthel’s works... 
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Banned User

In reply to this post by Intuitive Concaver
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Acenci,
What finally laid rest the flat Earth theory in my mind was the 'Pole Stars Conundrum'. I was debating a particularly obnoxious, condescending, and ignorant domesticant known as Mahrai Ziller. I'm sure you've heard of him. Real dull chap nags like a menstruating bitch too. Anyway, he kept complaining about no one refuting his long and obfuscated rant of pseudo nonsense and bastardized trigonometry. So I took him up on his challenge and really embarrassed him, especially his 'trigonometry' which calculated the distance between Canada and UK to be 340,000 km thereby proving the Earth incapable of being flat or rather that he is a dumbass who sucks at trigonometry. Anyway, I came across trouble with the Pole Stars in a flat earth model. I formulated a rather clever explanation based around perspective and another based around the Faraday rotation effect but in the end I had to ask myself: do I really believe this? Or am I just willingly overlooking discrepancies in the theory for the sake of defending my position? I carefully read Rowbotham's exact words in the sections of his book regarding the star rotations hoping to find an answer and basically he was saying "they will bring up sigma octantis just to defend a lie against all reason." and "Future experiments will indeed prove the rotations to all be around Polaris"...etc. etc. Basically, he didn't have enough information available from star patterns in the southern hemisphere. All it took was 1 video from Steven to change my mind. Really, when it comes to the nature of the Earth, he truly is the Lord. The gatekeeper of knowledge, the shepherd of lost flat Earth souls. He is singlehandedly breathing life back into the concave Earth and has mapped out so many phenomenon that neither flat or convex Earth has resolved. The funny thing is that the first video I watched wasn't even a technical one but simply him looking into the camera and saying "The Earth isn't flat... I'm sorry... It's the Truth" and with his words and sincerity you knew he was coming from a place of wisdom. He was simply right and the Truth always has an unmistakable ring to it. Things just keep adding up; the Glass Sky, megacryometeors, double suns, planetary precessions, the list goes on and on. I am blown away by the breadth and depth of knowledge he has. One can only conclude that he is exactly as he says he is; the real life reincarnation of Christ in the flesh. 
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Banned User

In reply to this post by Primalredemption
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Acenci et al,
You are right that the earth is flat. I still believe that it is flat. However, it is both flat and concave at the same time. Read the article I wrote this January: Over the Edge http://www.missteribabylonestar.com/overtheedge.html It was the work of Ernst Barthel and other Germans who convinced me. Euclidean geometry is essentially plane geometry. It only works for small surfaces. Barthel shows that the earth's surface does not follow Euclidean geometry but rather it follows Riemann geometry. I have also pasted some links below to help explain it. BTW I came to the conclusion that the earth was concave before I ever found out about Steven Christopher or his videos/website. Cheers! Ernst Barthel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Barthel What is Riemannian Geometry? A description for the nonmathematician. http://comet.lehman.cuny.edu/sormani/research/riemgeom.html 19TH CENTURY MATHEMATICS – RIEMANN http://www.storyofmathematics.com/19th_riemann.html Polargeometrie, von Dr. Ernst Barthel http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umhistmath/ABR1507.0001.001?view=toc Erweiterung raumtheoretischer Denkmoglichkeiten durch die Riemannsche Geometrie Von Ernst Barthel http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgibin/nphiarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1929AN....236..139B&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=139%2F140&epage=139%2F140&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf Fernaufnahme am Bodensee http://www.rolfkeppler.de/fernbod.htm 
Administrator

I really don't get you Cal. The earth is not flat.
I'm gonna pull down your article. I guess you had me thinking you believed the earth wasn't flat. 
Banned User

CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.

Free forum by Nabble  Edit this page 