June 14, 2018 at 9:37 am #830720GeneBalthropParticipant
- Topics started 42
- Total replies 16,427
Dig….No i am not blowing smoke. I don’t know how to draw thing on here, but yo can do the math as i have stated here before.
1…do you know what the pathagram theram is? You know the side (area) opposite a right triangle equal the sum of the other two sides. Do you understand that if not we are dead before we can even get started.
Do you know what a tangent line is?
If you know those two things it’s as easy as pie.
Take a 12 inch circle draw a straight tangent line out from the circle, that will represent on side of your right triangle, now go out along that tangent line and say every two inches draw another right triangel line, you should notice the right angel line keeps getting longer as you go further out the tangent line. Now draw a line from where the tangent line touches the circumference point to each right right triangel you made, ok so far?, now simply apply the math, it will give you the exact drop you are getting as you travel out further along the tangent line.
It just that simple Dig. It not smoke and mirrors as the flat earther present, it really works and is proven probably a milliom time each day in figuring circumstance drops of round objects, I learned that over 60 years ago in trigonometry class in high school.
Peace and love to you and yours. …….geneJune 14, 2018 at 9:58 am #830721
Oh, I see Gene, you can’t give me an illustration or an example but I’m supposed to just know automatically what you’re talking about. I guess it’s not so simple if you can’t give a simple illustration or example. Is it? Smoke and mirrors, nothing else. Or you could give one of your simple examples. Whichever is easier for you.
Gene, did you honestly think you were going to tutor me on math without providing any examples or equations? Guess who is providing the math to support their theory? It’s the FE people! And here’s the kicker – we use your math!June 14, 2018 at 10:18 am #830722
Who’s up for the Jenga challange?
You know any movement will topple the stack of Jenga blocks. It has to be perfectly still (no centrifugal force) to keep from collapse.
Just for fun, here is a video of some guy demonstrating the point.June 14, 2018 at 10:53 am #830723
Nick: “Could Peter walk on water? No that was impossible. He agreed and sank.”
Actually he did walk on water for a while. Where did you learn that it was impossible because Yeshua did it too without sinking? He even reached down and pulled Peter up out of the water!
You must have been listening to the scientists and not the Word of God.June 14, 2018 at 10:57 am #830724
Think about a stack of Jenga blocks stack up in a car. Now that car turns a corner – what happens? CRASH!
Centrifugal force! (At maybe 15 to 20 mph and not 1,000+ mph)
Take the Jenga challange!June 14, 2018 at 11:52 am #830725GeneBalthropParticipant
- Topics started 42
- Total replies 16,427
Dig….you cant tell why the blocks never fell over. It because all the gravitional pull is straight dowm the center line and transfers to the main supporting leg. But let him go past center and down come all his blocks, i would put money on it. It’s like when a person balances himself on one leg same principle applies. This is all just smoke and mirrors, you people use to decieve with.
Heres your formula, explained, not that it would do any good.
A right triangel has three sides, side A, side B, side C. I HAVENT LOST YOU SO FAR HAVE I?
formula… Side C = the square root of, side A squared + side B squared.
Just type in the pathagram theram, on the Internet and there is all kinds of sites that give you the exact fornula. My computer does not make the symbols need to give you the exact formula. But what i have described is apsolutely it.
Let say, side a = 24 ft and side b = 7 ft what would side c =
Side A Is 24×24=576 square feet
Side b is 7×7 = 49 square feet
The total A+B = 625 square feet
Whats the square root of 625 feet? Its 25
Side C = 25 feet.
I apsolutly do not know how much simpler it can be made for you. You are either playing games or you must be dumber then a bag of hammers. No wonder you are so easly decieved by these Flat Earthers, and Conspiracy therist.
Peace and love to you and yours. ……geneJune 14, 2018 at 11:59 am #830726
Congratulations Gene, you’ve figured out a triangle.
Now how about a sphere? With a circumference of the earth’s? A few examples? Unless you think the earth is a triangle.June 14, 2018 at 12:45 pm #830727
Gene: “”you cant tell why the blocks never fell over. It because all the gravitional pull is straight dowm the center line and transfers to the main supporting leg. But let him go past center and down come all his blocks, i would put money on it. It’s like when a person balances himself on one leg same principle applies. This is all just smoke and mirrors, you people use to decieve with.”
Gene, no disrespect but that is the opposite of centrifugal force. The fact that the weight is staying over the center point proves there is no centrifugal force on it. That’s the point!
A center line of weight does keep things upright but centrifugal force “forces” the weight to be moved from the center point – that’s the point! Ergo – Jenga!
So the question remains, what is keeping the 1,000 + mph centrifugal force at the equator from forcing the Jenga blocks to come crashing down?
What negates the centrifugal force on earth?June 14, 2018 at 1:06 pm #830728
T8: So the lunar eclipse is not the shadow of the Earth on the moon, rather the moon which is a light turning off or kind of dimming itself. Maybe rebooting the light.
Maybe. This is what’s called a lunar wave, or pulse. Look it up on YouTube, as there are many amateur photographers who have captured them. What it is, I don’t know, but your use of the term rebooting brought it to mind…
Here’s a video that has nine of them from different photographers…
T8: Wow, Mike. That is a desperate answer. First off, you have no proof, and secondly, it is probably the best answer you could come up with if you reject the earth casting a shadow.
That the moon is its own light is a desperate answer? Rather, it is the scriptural answer. And top-down eclipses (and selenelions) are all the proof anyone needs to know it’s not the earth causing the shadow on the moon… at least on those occasions. And if not on those occasions, what valid reason do we have to believe the earth causes the shadow on any occasion?
T8: The moonlight does not cause an object to get colder. It’s the object in the shade that gets warmer.
Judging from your explanation, you seem to think I’m talking about measuring the temp on a clear night versus measuring it on a cloudy night. I am not. I am talking about having one object half in direct moonlight and the other half shaded from the moonlight, and recording the different temperatures at the same time. There are hundreds of amateur experiments to choose from. This one is only a minute and a half…
Mike: Jehovah told us that He created two lights – the greater to govern the day, and the lesser to govern the night.
T8: There you go being literal again and assuming that which is not written.
Which part of my blue words above is not written?
T8: Remember though, David under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said the sun rises, so you have to throw out the Flat Earth model now right?
No he didn’t.June 14, 2018 at 1:28 pm #830729
T8: And worse, while you say the creation is strictly 24 hours even though that word can mean ‘period of time’, you then say the sun is not rising or setting in that psalm. So you have to deny two meanings in one verse. The other word which you would assume means ‘west’ given your context doesn’t even mean ‘west’. This favours my argument as it means “to its setting” or “unto the going down”. Who is the sucker now? lol.
The Hebrew word “yowm” can mean EXACTLY what the English word “day” can mean. It can mean a 24 hour period. It can mean a general period of time, as in “back in the day of Abraham Lincoln”. It can mean just the 12 hour period of daylight within a 24 hour day.
But please tell me your reason for NOT considering it a 24 hour period in Genesis 1.
As for Psalm 113:3, here is the meaning of the Hebrew word translated as “setting” in many English Bibles…Strong’s Concordancemabo: entrance, a coming in, entering
Original Word: מָבוֹא
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Phonetic Spelling: (maw-bo’)
Short Definition: entranceNAS Exhaustive Concordance
Definition: entrance, a coming in, entering
come (1), enter (1), entrance (13), entry (1), place of its setting (1), setting (5), sunset* (1), west* (1).
מָבוֺא noun masculine Jeremiah 38:14entrance, a coming in, entering;
Zechariah 8:7 NAS: and from the land of the west;
Ezekiel 46:19 NAS: Then he brought me through the entrance,
Ezekiel 33:31 NAS: to you as people come, and sit
Ezekiel 26:10 NAS: your gates as men enter a city
Does the second one mean “he brought me through the sunset”? Does the third mean, “you people – sunset and sit”? Does the fourth mean, “as men sunset a city”?June 14, 2018 at 1:32 pm #830730NickHassanParticipant
- Topics started 284
- Total replies 70,435
You stand on your petty mound of intellectual superiority and hurl contempt at others.
While ignoring the weightier matters.?June 14, 2018 at 1:47 pm #830731
T8: So does this verse not mean firmament or what. I didn’t read your post where you supposedly debunked this.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
The Hebrew is, “in the face of the firmament”.
[in the open firmament of heaven] This rendering scarcely reproduces the sense of the Hebrew words, which literally mean “in the face of,” or “over against, the firmament of heaven.” The idea is that winged things are to fly “above” the earth, and “in front of” the vault of heaven. The R.V. margin, on the face of the expanse of the heaven, is cumbrous and obscure. The meaning seems to be that the flight of winged things shall be in mid air, “in front,” as it were, of the solid “firmament of heaven,” which was not remote. The winged creatures would continually be visible against the sky.
…and let birds fly above the earth in the face (the front, i.e., the side turned towards the earth) of the firmament.”
In the open firmament.—Literally, upon the face of the expanse of heaven—that is, in front of it, upon the lower surface of the atmosphere near to the earth.June 14, 2018 at 1:57 pm #830732
T8: Can you not see how you have become like the Trinitarians you use to debate> Sad but true it seems.
Start with the premise and all evidence that proves the contrary is just a misinterpretation, mistranslation, fake, false, etc.
T8, how do Trinitarians become Trinitarians in the first place… in your opinion?
T8: For example, my photo of Mount Ruapehu alone debunks your quoted statement. But you will just ignore that possibility because the Earth is flat.
Interesting that you accuse me of what I see you doing. It’s obvious that you could see Mount Ruapehu with your own eyes that day, right? And it’s obvious that all of us can see Mount Ruapehu in your photograph, right? I believe that’s because you saw and photographed the actual Mount Ruapehu. But why exactly do you believe you photographed a refracted image of it instead? What is the reason you invoke refraction in this case?June 14, 2018 at 2:01 pm #830733
T8: Those models are that, models… But knowledge increased…
When exactly was the knowledge concerning the firmament versus a vast vacuum of space first increased? And how exactly was that accomplished?June 14, 2018 at 2:04 pm #830734
T8: Well of course it doesn’t look like that planet that NASA shows us because NASA send craft close to the subject and spend millions doing so, whereas you have to contend with atmospheric moisture, distance, and heaps of zoom on a thousand dollar video camera. If you could shoot NASA quality footage of heavenly objects in our Solar System, then why would NASA spend millions to ge the same images. lol.
You mean like this NASA quality footage?
Have you ever known cloud formations to remain exactly the same for over 5 hours straight?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.