Because, in my opinion, the intention is to make the human being feel totally disoriented in a chaotic universe, without up or down, without stability of any kind, in constant expansion, but destined finally to become extinct, emerged from a "big bang" impersonal and meaningless, with the human being brought into existence by the chance of "evolution", and being of utter insignificance in a meaningless cosmos. This is the subliminal message people receive through the modern, "scientific" worldview of the universe. And this is in the antipodes of what emerges from the biblical account of Creation...

Because your life cannot have meaning in a meaningless world. That is why Galileo was one of the worst revolutionaries, worst than Marx, he destroyed Christian cosmology, and with this he put in doubt all the Bible. Saint Bellarmine and the Church were right. Galileo repented of what he did at the end of his life. But who nowadays knows that Galileo was wrong in every way? Very few! and if you show people the scientific proof that the earth doesn't move and it is the center of the universe you are seen as crazy (Although whether the earth is flat or round I cannot tell). Despite the fact that all Church fathers support this truth (this interpretation of the bible) Thus, making it certain. This means that if you are against a motionless earth at the center of the universe you are a heretic. Because when all Church Fathers agree on some interpretation you have to believe it. BUT NOBODY CARES! Because people do not understand how important is to know these truths.

The majority do not lie, they simply do not relate things, do not "join the dots", almost no one considers the possibility of the flat earth, it is an issue absent from the concerns of the vast majority of people. But the truth is that a large number of pilots, when questioned about their supposed adjustment in relation to the earth's surface, naturally admit that nobody does. The same is said by the artillerymen of the armed forces, and the engineers of bridges and canals and highways and railways, it is a unanimous testimony in this regard...

Honestly, I cannot answer you, because I am completely unaware of the technical issues in this regard. The only thing I know is that I have heard testimony from pilots who deny making any adjustments in relation to the supposed curvature of the earth. And the same thing I say about ballistics specialists and engineers, who never take this parameter into account when exercising their trades. In any case, there is a very simple argument, available to anyone, without requiring complex mathematical calculations or technical subtleties, that allows anyone to understand that the earth is flat: water does not curve. It is an irrefutable fact and whose empirical verification is within reach of anyone who really seeks to know the truth on this matter. The truth is within the reach of anyone who really want to know it, instead of allowing to be submerged and stunned by a tide of technicalities and complicated reasoning through which the diabolical world elite, failing to convince us all, nevertheless manages, most of the time, to humiliate us before the public opinion, discredit us in order to lose credibility and reduce us to a humiliating silence by not knowing what to say in the face of their elaborate sophisms. It is something analogous to what happens with "evolutionism": it is the classic tactic of the evil one, that of neutralizing ordinary people through a false and abstruse science to which ordinary mortals are not in a position to respond adequately...

@Darby D Dillion Science never tells you more than the model. And the model is INVENTED by man. Of course a good model will try to correspond as much as possible with reality otherwise nobody will use it since it wont be able to predict. For instance the model that says that the earth is still and the center of the universe can do exactly the same predictions as a model with the sun or whatever other location at its center, to use either of those models is up to the person, and the reason to chose one or the other may depend on how convenient it is to make some calculations (or some other reason). The "geo stationary" satellites can be as easily explained in a model with the earth at its center. Science is like the following: You find that the grass in your backyard is wet: and you know rain produce this effect, also watering the plants produce this effect, and an infinitude of other reason may cause your grass to be wet. Now you do science and you build a simple model that says that any time there is rain then your grass will be wet. So far so good, now the problem nowadays is that people who knows little about the process of science will fall into the erroneous believe that only rain can make the grass wet, forcing their senses to accommodate to this model, and even if there is somebody watering the plants then later they will say that somehow it rained in between. It sound dumb but ultimately this is the error that most people fall with respect to science. So it is very possible that the pilot used a model with the premise that the earth is round and made some calculations that made sense, but this doesn't mean that the same explanations cannot be given with the assumption that the earth is flat. In summary it is not conclusive, because of the nature of science. It is not dumb to believe in a flat earth, because of the size of the earth our senses are not enough to conclude (although I have seen more proof that the earth is at least bigger than what they tell us because of the length you can zoom on the sea and see objects that should be hidden behind the curve, that proof is way more powerful than most globers use). But in summary, it is not dumb to believe either position. If the people at NASA were trustworthy we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I do not know enough about the technical details to come up with an analogous explanation with a flat earth as a premise. But I'm sure it can be done. Maybye you will be navigating in a new map who doesn't need corrections? I do not know. The same way that some old astronomers, who believed the planets moved in circles, tried to aproximate an ellipse with sum of circles (Epicycles are just data analysis (Fourier series)). There must be a way we can came up with a function that transfroms a flat earth to a round earth and viceversa (whatever the shape is in reality) And then we apply that same function to all the calculations and we can go from one solution to the other given our assumptions. Now the difference may be that it can add complexity to the calculations if the premise is far from reality, but it can be done.

Very interesting exchange. I have not participated simply because I do not have the necessary knowledge to launch into this type of analysis and argumentation. I limit myself to what my sensible knowledge of the surrounding reality tells me, along with a dose of common sense. Regarding the spherical drop of water, again, I cannot make any pertinent comment from a scientific point of view. But I am sure that if this case were submitted to an expert in fluid mechanics, he would know how to explain the reason for the shape that water has when it is present in such a minute quantity, while in all other cases, anyone, without need of any scientific knowledge, can verify for himself the evident fact from which he can conclude, in perfect logic, the irrefutable physical law that water spontaneously tends to level off, and that it is impossible for it to spread out in a container adopting a curved shape. This is a truth within the reach of any human being whose senses function correctly and whose reason does not suffer some kind of disturbance. And it is precisely based on this indubitable and irrefutable premise that I affirm the following: this single fact, totally true and empirically verifiable by anyone in their bathtub or in their kitchen sink, is reason enough to maintain that the earth's surface can not be spherical, but it must necessarily be flat. On the other hand, when one looks closely at the main indoctrinator in the matter -NASA-, and verifies that they are inveterate liars, a second argument is added that, although I recognize that it is not in itself a decisive one, gives legitimate reasons such as to distrust and investigate for oneself if the conception of the earth and the universe that they present to us is worthy of trust... Watch this videos and you will see: 1. "IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT NASA IS LYING TO US" - Related: 1. NASA IS COM… - 2. NASA IS COMING BACK TO THE MOON. - 3. American Moon (English Version)

Not at all, it is a very serious one. I suggest you to take the time to look at it leaving aside your prejudices for a moment and you will be able to verify it. And, of course, the supposed "law of gravity" is another untenable hoax, invented to support the official story of the spinning ball suspended in space. What exists is the law of density, by which an object of greater density than the medium in which it is found goes down; otherwise, it goes up, like a balloon filled with helium in the air. By the way, it would be interesting for the cause of the globe if someone ever proves that water is capable of adhering to a sphere that rotates at 1600 km per hour and moves forward at more than 100,000 km per hour, retaining the colossal weight of the oceans but, surprisingly enough, being unable to prevent butterflies from taking flight without any difficulty...

I'm sorry to repeat myself, I've posted this before, but I must post it again. Sufficient proof that the Earth is not flat is that if it were, cats would long ago have pushed everything off of it...

...and, looking at the video, that's about the same level of intellectual rigor as the arguments presented therein to the contrary.