Flat Earth Debate: Mike Vs. T8

This topic contains 52 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  mikeboll64 6 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #832183
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,281

    T8:  Can I have an honest answer to my question. I will make it easier for you though. It doesn’t have to be the best reason for believing in the existence of Madagascar, but a strong reason only. This should help speed up your response.

    I gave you my honest answer.  I couldn’t, if my life depended on it, provide any observational evidence that the island of Madagascar actually exists.  I could appeal to photos, stories, nature films, and maps, but I couldn’t possibly verify any of them as reality.  What is your personal evidence that Madagascar exists?

    #832230
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    Great. Thank you for answering. And now you can see that the average person also relies on the weight of evidence for the round earth. The sheer weight of evidence that is not experienced by either yourself or me is that Madagascar exists on a globe earth despite either of us ever being to Madagascar or space. If not, then we are talking about a conspiracy involving millions of people trying make us believe that Madagascar is real and even more than that making us believe wrong that the world is round.

    Na, I don’t buy it. I am not suffering from paranoia.

    Show me some pics or videos of the dome, the disc, or proof that the sailing distances in the Southern Ocean are way way bigger than currently understood and I will consider your evidence. But heat rising from the ground or a small boat disappearing when zooming out as far as your camera can, is not even close to make me reconsider.

    #832231
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    You know Mike, I remember years ago hearing a sermon about people who fall for cults and the like. The speaker pointed out that the chances were, the person at first had a strange feeling about what they were hearing, but became convinced over time. I believe that feeling is the Spirit of Truth and over time, that spirit is being ignored or quenched.

    Yes, I came out of the Trinity, but it didn’t seem strange or weird to me that God was not a Trinity. I arrived at that conclusion from scripture and had a positive experience about it the whole time, even among huge opposition.
    It kinds works with bad things that happen to us sometimes. I remember hearing about a girl who was raped in a park and she asked ‘where was God’. But someone asked if she had a weird feeling about going into that park in the first place and the answer was she did feel weird about it but ignored that feeling.
    God often speaks the truth to us immediately when we hear truth or if we hear a lie. What did the Spirit of Truth say to you at first? And what did it take for you to change your opinion as to how you first felt? BTW, this is not a must answer question, but something to ponder.
    #832232
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    NO, it is impossible to know either the shape or the size of the earth using two shadows.

    And the point of the question was to establish that the first claim almost every globe earther makes (“intelligent people have known the earth is round for over 2000 years”) is founded on a fallacy; and those people are only parroting crap they learned from other people, who were themselves parroting crap they learned from liars.  Such is the path of indoctrination… tell the lie so often and for so long that it becomes a “truth” that people are unwilling to give up – because it’s easier to fool people that to convince them that they have been fooled.  Human pride makes a great tool for Satan to use against us.

    Taken from Wikipedia:

    History

    Antiquity

    Though the earliest written mention of a spherical Earth comes from ancient Greek sources, there is no account of how the sphericity of the Earth was discovered.[10] A plausible explanation is that it was “the experience of travellers that suggested such an explanation for the variation in the observable altitude and the change in the area of circumpolar stars, a change that was quite drastic between Greek settlements”[attribution needed] around the eastern Mediterranean Sea, particularly those between the Nile Delta and Crimea.[11]

    In The Histories, written 431–425 BC, Herodotus cast doubt on a report of the Sun observed shining from the north. He stated that the phenomenon was observed during a circumnavigation of Africa undertaken by Phoenician explorers employed by Egyptian pharaoh Necho II c. 610–595 BC (The Histories, 4.42) who claimed to have had the Sun on their right when circumnavigating in a clockwise direction. To modern historians, these details confirm the truth of the Phoenicians’ report and even open the possibility that the Phoenicians knew about the spherical model. However, nothing certain about their knowledge of geography and navigation has survived.[12]

    The Hebrew Bible imagined a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[13] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens.[14]

    Pythagoras

    Early Greek philosophers alluded to a spherical Earth, though with some ambiguity.[15] Pythagoras (6th century BC) was among those said to have originated the idea, but this might reflect the ancient Greek practice of ascribing every discovery to one or another of their ancient wise men.[10] Some idea of the sphericity of the Earth seems to have been known to both Parmenides and Empedocles in the 5th century BC,[16] and although the idea cannot reliably be ascribed to Pythagoras,[17] it might nevertheless have been formulated in the Pythagorean school in the 5th century BC[10][16] although some disagree.[18] After the 5th century BC, no Greek writer of repute thought the world was anything but round.[15]

    Plato

    Plato (427–347 BC) travelled to southern Italy to study Pythagorean mathematics. When he returned to Athens and established his school, Plato also taught his students that Earth was a sphere, though he offered no justifications. “My conviction is that the Earth is a round body in the centre of the heavens, and therefore has no need of air or of any similar force to be a support”.[19] If man could soar high above the clouds, Earth would resemble “one of those balls which have leather coverings in twelve pieces, and is decked with various colours, of which the colours used by painters on Earth are in a manner samples.”[20] In Timaeus, his one work that was available throughout the Middle Ages in Latin, we read that the Creator “made the world in the form of a globe, round as from a lathe, having its extremes in every direction equidistant from the centre, the most perfect and the most like itself of all figures”,[21] though the word “world” here refers to the heavens.

    Aristotle

    Round Earth umbra during the August 2008 lunar eclipse
    Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato’s prize student and “the mind of the school”.[22] Aristotle observed “there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2–10)

    Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:

    Every portion of the Earth tends toward the centre until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9–21)
    Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
    The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31–298a10).
    The concepts of symmetry, equilibrium and cyclic repetition permeated Aristotle’s work. In his Meteorology he divided the world into five climatic zones: two temperate areas separated by a torrid zone near the equator, and two cold inhospitable regions, “one near our upper or northern pole and the other near the … southern pole,” both impenetrable and girdled with ice (Meteorologica, 362a31–35). Although no humans could survive in the frigid zones, inhabitants in the southern temperate regions could exist.

    Archimedes

    In proposition 2 of the First Book of his treatise “On floating bodies,” Archimedes demonstrates that “The surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose centre is the same as that of the earth,”.[23] Subsequently, in propositions 8 and 9 of the same work, he assumes the result of proposition 2 that the Earth is a sphere and that the surface of a fluid on it is a sphere centered on the center of the Earth.[24]

    Eratosthenes

    Eratosthenes, a Greek astronomer from Hellenistic Libya (276–194 BC), estimated Earth’s circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a ‘stade’ is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes’s figure only has an error of around five to fifteen percent.[25][26][27] Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridional circumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are practically parallel.[28]

    Seventeen hundred years after Eratosthenes, Christopher Columbus studied Eratosthenes’s findings before sailing west for the Indies. However, ultimately he rejected Eratosthenes in favour of other maps and arguments that interpreted Earth’s circumference to be a third smaller than reality. If, instead, Columbus had accepted Eratosthenes findings, then he may have never gone west, since he didn’t have the supplies or funding needed for the much longer voyage.

    #832270
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,281

    T8:  Yes, I came out of the Trinity, but it didn’t seem strange or weird to me that God was not a Trinity. 

    Fantastic.  Here is the question I actually asked…

    Mike:  How do Trinitarians come to be Trinitarians?

    For example, are they led to the Trinity via scripture? Via Holy Spirit?  Via men’s traditions?  How are Trinitarians made?  Just by reading the Bible?  Or is there something else?

    I’m also waiting for the answer to this question…

    Mike:  Do you know the difference between “assume” and “determine”?  YES or NO?

    As for your lengthy Wiki cut-and-paste job, I see a lot of assuming and hypothesizing going on, but this was the question…

    Mike:  In the last 475 years, how has mankind been able to determine (“ascertain or establish exactly” – as opposed to “assume” or “mathematically describe”) that the earth is a spinning ball orbiting the sun and hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour?

    An assumption is not a determination.  A mathematical formula is not a determination.  A hypothesis is not a determination.  I’m asking when exactly we were able to PROVE that we live on a spinning ball that orbits the sun… and how that was done.

    #832533
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    Mike:  Do you know the difference between “assume” and “determine”?  YES or NO?

    Honestly, no. I would have to google that. Off the cuff, I think ‘assume’ is a logical guess and ‘determine’ is trying to find out something.

    #832535
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    Mike:  In the last 475 years, how has mankind been able to determine (“ascertain or establish exactly” – as opposed to “assume” or “mathematically describe”) that the earth is a spinning ball orbiting the sun and hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour?

    Okay, I’m just going to rattle off what I know, so my explanation might be a little rusty.

    For the Earth being a globe, a number of observations and calculations early on, followed by actual navigation and expeditions that circumnavigated the globe and visited the southern continent, then followed by actual footage once we had the technology. The latter being the nail in the coffin for the Flat Earth.

    As for moving in space, well it is a no-brainer that everything is moving from our perspective except yes, we experience being still. This is also true when we take an aircraft and say throw a tennis ball up and down. We are still and everything else is moving. Same when travelling inside a car. You only notice you are moving when you change speed, open the window, or hear the engines, (which the Earth doesn’t experience). Thus, it is at least possible given these simple observations that the Earth could be moving too along with its atmosphere like everything else is.

    Then we have the Doppler Effect in the visible spectrum that shows all heavenly bodies are moving away from us leading to the idea that if you rewind the clock, there was a moment of creation at a single point rather than the Universe always existing in a steady state which is what Einstein subscribed to, but had to change his view once multiple pieces of evidence started to stream in. The moment of creation of course pointed to God, but it was science and Atheists towed the line. Discovery of the background radiation I think was predicted was then discovered leading to a Nobel Prize. This is microwave radiation which was a product of the what became known as the Big Bang. Another word for the moment of creation.

    Earlier observations with the naked eye and with telescopes showed us that all the stars bar one that we see are actually in a galaxy called the Milky Way and the one star that is not, turned out to be another whole galaxy which was named ‘Andromeda’. As telescopes became more powerful such as Hubble , images of tens of thousands of galaxies were captured even in one small point of darkness proving that there are billions of suns in each galaxy and there are billions of galaxies. (The heavens declaring the glory of God.)

    It seems the more we learn, the more even Atheists are totally blown away by the creation we exist in. While the universe we understand today begs that there is a God all the more, men’s hearts are hard. On the other-hand, in Quantum Physics, many physicists are starting to believe in God when they see how finely tuned the universe is. This is why the Multiverse Theory is rising. It is the only contender to explain a universe without God. Before this, that theory was not taken seriously in the scientific community.  So the option today is the universe was either created by an almighty God or our universe happened to be the lucky one in an almost eternal multiverse where each universe has a different series of rules. This is just an outline Mike. Obviously there is a lot of science behind all this.

    Indeed, the Bible predicts this increase in science. Science means Knowledge and the scriptures say that knowledge shall increase. 

    #832539
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    Yes or no.

    This is not a rocky sphere with crater formed by smaller rocks flying through space. Instead, it is an actual light like a star or like our sun?

    #832800
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,281

    Mike:  Do you know the difference between “assume” and “determine”?  YES or NO?

    T8:  Honestly, no. I would have to google that. Off the cuff, I think ‘assume’ is a logical guess and ‘determine’ is trying to find out something.

    I just Googled it for you…

    as·sume:  suppose to be the case, without proof

    de·ter·mine: ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation.

     

    Now do you know the difference between “assume” and “determine”?  YES or NO?

     

    #832805
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,281

    T8:  Okay, I’m just going to rattle off what I know, so my explanation might be a little rusty.

    I appreciate the honest response.

    T8:  For the Earth being a globe, a number of observations and calculations early on…

    Which specific observation or calculation proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the earth was a globe?

    T8:  …followed by actual navigation and expeditions that circumnavigated the globe and visited the southern continent…

    As for east to west, it works the same on a flat earth.  No one has ever circumnavigated the earth north to south.

    (*** The following segment is just for your information, and not anything you need to address. ***)

    In fact, check this out…

    https://www.overthepoles2018.com/

    It’s supposed to be the third ever north to south circumnavigation of the earth – although if you check the flight routes of the first two, they weren’t truly a north/south over both poles circumnavigation.  The website says…

    Despite all of the technical advancements made in aviation during the past half-century, to this day, far more people have orbited the earth in space than have made a complete circumnavigation of the world over both poles.

    Odd, don’t you think?  How many have circumnavigated east to west?  Millions.  How many north to south?  Far less than the amount of people who have been to space!  Lol.

    When news of this flight hit the flat earth community, a couple of people booked tickets, with the intention of taking cameras, compasses, gyroscopes, and other instruments designed to see if the flight is really doing what they say they’re going to do.  We were excited to see the results, but then the news reached the company doing the flight, and so they had to add this to their site…

    it has come to our attention that some have expressed interest in using this flight to attempt to disprove or discredit scientific fact. As the safety and comfort of all passengers is our primary concern, we will not permit any scientific or experimental equipment of any kind on board the aircraft.

    Funny, huh?  We flat earthers need to learn to keep our big mouths shut, because a similar thing happened a couple of months ago.  A flat earther in Argentina arranged with the biggest satellite launcher in the country to affix a non-GoPro (ie: non-fisheye lens) camera on the next launch.  Everything was a go until they talked about this exciting accomplishment on the weekly Globebusters program.  The next thing you know, the owner of the satellite called the president of the launching company and told him in no uncertain terms that if he allowed this to happen, his company would never launch another satellite for anyone again.  They also made threats to him personally.  And there have been many things like this that keep happening… like Earth Nullschool removing the AE map from their site after flat earthers were overloading YouTube with videos of how the weather, wind, and temperature patterns made no sense whatsoever on all the other projections, but perfect sense on the AE flat earth map.  You might remember me mentioning that earlier.  Here’s a quick example of the jet stream on the globe projection…

    … as compared to the same data on the AE flat earth projection.

    Now which one makes better sense of the data?  And you’d see the same thing with temperature data, ocean currents, wind currents, tides, and every other bit of data the site offers.  Now ask yourself why the site would suddenly stop offering only the AE projection, just as dozens of YouTubers were presenting the site as strong evidence of a flat earth.  Or why a person cannot bring a compass, gyro and camera on what the Polar Explorer people say will be a rare historic flight.  Or why an Argentinian man was threatened just for agreeing to allow a non-fisheye camera to launch on his high altitude balloon?  But nah… there’s no conspiracy.  🙂  And have you seen this yet?  It’s a snippet of a government committee grilling a YouTube exec over what they are going to do to suppress freedom of speech.  First in the line of fire?  The flat earth awakening of course.  It’s only a minute and a half…

    Come on, man… people have been speaking freely about alien abductions, Bigfoot, ghost whisperers, gender choice, killing unborn babies, how Trump needs to be assassinated, and how it’s perfectly normal for homosexual men to have intercourse with young boys.  All those are allowed freely on YouTube.  But flat earth?  Nope… that’s got to go!  Whatever happened to this mindset…

    I may not agree with what you’re saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    This is the beginning of the end, T8.  They’ve already had a monopoly on presenting only what they want us to believe on their media for decades now.  But now they’re about to start suppressing free speech.  What do you think about that?  Sure, today it is only flat earth… but what about tomorrow?  The Christian Right?  And then Christianity altogether?  I say bring it on, you Satan worshipping Illuminati One World Order clowns.  Because the worse it gets, the closer we are to judgement day and God’s payback.

    (*** End rambling on section.  ***)

    T8:  …then followed by actual footage once we had the technology. The latter being the nail in the coffin for the Flat Earth.

    So is this the proof I’ve been asking for?  Because the rest of what you mentioned isn’t proof of anything.  There is no “observation” that the earth is round.  And mathematical calculations are a dime a dozen.  People can make the same numbers say completely different things.  So I’m assuming that this NASA “footage” is the answer to the question I originally asked, ie: the point that mankind finally “ascertained exactly that the earth was a ball.  Is that correct?  If not, tell me precisely which observation or calculation proved it before then.  If you cannot (which you won’t be able to), we’ll agree that images from NASA are the first actual “proof” that the earth is round.

    And that’s what I’m trying to get at here, T8.  My intention is to show you that nobody “knew” the earth was round from Eratosthenes.  Nobody “knew” the earth was round from Copernicus.   Or from Galileo.  Or from Newton.  Or from Kepler, etc.  I’m trying to teach you that until we were able to take pictures from space and actually OBSERVE the earth as a ball, nobody could “ascertain exactly” that it was.  I want you to know this undeniable fact before we move forward.  I want you to either tell me precisely how we “ascertained exactly” that the earth was a ball before space missions – or acknowledge that the earliest images of earth from space were the first time anybody truly knew the earth was a ball.

    I’ll get to the rest of that post tomorrow.  Remember I only want this last part addressed.  The rest of the post was just me presenting information that you may or may not find interesting.  All I want to know is the PRECISE MOMENT IN TIME that any man could PROVE BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that the earth was a ball.

    Do you understand?  If you contend that there was a time before space travel that someone PROVED the earth was a ball, then list that EXACT experiment, calculation or observation.  If you cannot, then be man enough to acknowledge that photos from space were the first time.

    I’ll address the spinning and your misunderstandings of Doppler the next time.

    #832840
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,281

    T8:  As for moving in space, well it is a no-brainer that everything is moving from our perspective except yes, we experience being still.

    Correct.  Other things are moving, and we are still.  It’s what we experience, and what the Bible says.

    T8:  Thus, it is at least possible given these simple observations that the Earth could be moving too along with its atmosphere like everything else is.

    It’s also possible that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle… doesn’t make it reasonable.

    T8:  Then we have the Doppler Effect in the visible spectrum that shows all heavenly bodies are moving away from us leading to the idea that if you rewind the clock, there was a moment of creation at a single point…

    Redshift is open to interpretation, T8.  If it is a real thing at all, there are many causes provided for it.  From a very good (but very long) eBook you should read…

    The Speed Red-shift. This theory is also called the “Doppler theory of redshift,” and is the theory maintained by the supporters of evolution and stellar cosmology theories. We will here call it the “speedtheory.” Scientists have theorized that this redshift in the star spectra occurs because all the stars of the heavens are rapidly moving away from us, but the shift could be caused instead by simple factors which are far less sensational.

    [1] Gravitational Red-shifts. The pull of gravity on light rays could cause a loss of energy.

    [2] Second-order Doppler shift. A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be red-shifted (the second-order Doppler Effect). This would occur if the universe were moving slowly in a vast circle around a common center.

    (3) Energy-loss shift. Light waves could themselves directly lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This would not be unusual. Other things lose energy, light rays could also. Keep in mind that the redshift is ever so slight. It indicates the loss of only a very small amount of energy. This is also called the “tired light theory. “

    To make things worse, famous astronomer Halton Arp filled books with redshifts that didn’t align.  For example, he would measure a redshift of 400 on a quasar that is physically linked to a galaxy that only has a redshift of 100, or whatever.  How could one part of the galaxy be speeding away from us 4 times faster than another part of the same galaxy?  He documented so many of these cases that, even though he was one of the most famous and respected cosmologists in the world, they took away his telescope time because he wasn’t playing by the Big Bang Only rules.

    And finally, even if the universe were expanding today, why would we have to play the record back to a single point?  Why not play it back only 6000 years?  Can you come up with a valid reason we have to extrapolate all the way back to a singularity?  Here is the link to that fantastic book.  I have it on the Redshift page and ready to go…

    http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch01c.htm#REDSHIFT%20THEORY

     

    T8:  Indeed, the Bible predicts this increase in science. Science means Knowledge and the scriptures say that knowledge shall increase. 

    The Bible says don’t be fooled by science falsely so-called.

    You mentioned a couple other points, but they, like all of your points, are speculations and assumptions.  This is attested by the quotes I’ve showed you from Einstein, Newton, Hoyle, and, as recently as 1995, George Ellis – who said he could create a geocentric model that can’t be disproved by physical evidence.

    I asked this question:

    In the last 475 years, how has mankind been able to determine (“ascertain or establish exactly” – as opposed to “assume” or “mathematically describe”) that the earth is a spinning ball orbiting the sun and hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour?

    The answer is that we haven’t.  Not in the 17th century.  Not in the 19th.  Not in the 70’s.  Not in the 90’s.  And still not to this very day.  At no point in the history of man has the heliocentric model ever been proven.  I really need you to understand that.  So please either acknowledge it or point me to the precise moment in time that it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is a spinning ball orbiting the sun and hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour… and what particular experiment/observation finally proved it.

    #832841
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,281

    T8:  Yes or no.

    This is not a rocky sphere with crater formed by smaller rocks flying through space. Instead, it is an actual light like a star or like our sun?

    According to scripture, it is a light.  It is said to have its own light, like the sun.  It is said to be the same size as the sun – only 7 times less bright.  I have no empirical evidence that it is a sphere or a terrestrial body.  I have no empirical evidence that the patterns on it are craters – or what caused them if they are.  You have no such evidence to offer on the matter either.

    I can’t tell you how the moon works, or what it even is.  I can tell you that many things about it directly contradict the heliocentric model.

    #833067
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,281

    Something to think about – as per your question…

     

     

    #833074
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,281

    It seems you are stuck, T8.  Maybe this will help…

     

    People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

    • George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”, October 1995

    Since as late as 1995, after we’ve supposedly been to “outer space” hundreds of times, cosmologists can still mathematically construct a universe with the Earth at its center – and it cannot be disproved by observation.

    So I ask again…

    In the last 475 years, how has mankind been able to determine (“ascertain or establish exactly” – as opposed to “assume” or “mathematically describe”) that the earth is a spinning ball orbiting the sun and hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour?

    (The answer is:  “They haven’t.”  Please answer the question honestly and directly so we can move on to the boats disappearing over the horizon.)

    #833084
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    Mike. Please explain how the Flat Earth model produces this effect?

    #833085
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    The Solar System model fixes observational anomalies near Earth

    Mike, whether you put the sun around the Earth or the Earth around the sun, it won’t make much difference to observations in the universe. But observations in our own system, it will make a huge difference. The Solar System sees wandering stars take on a regular elliptical orbit instead of a loop de loop loopy orbit. It also explains eclipses past and future with 100% accuracy. Try predicting the next eclipse with the Flat Earth model. You can’t.

    The Solar System model allows for accurate predictions

    So please explain how the Solar System model predicts the eclipses including the Blood Moon we had the other day? Because you have to believe it is all luck. What other explanation could you possibly have? Do the elites have a remote control for the moon with an off button? lol.

    Proof of the prediction:

    You can’t put out early notices like this using the Flat Earth model can you?
    NASA have the next so many thousands of years eclipses already predicted.
    I learned this from the many videos that talk about the Revelation 12 sign and the Stellarium software that these guys use.

    Lack of prediction is a major fail for the Flat Earth.

    #833087
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    Maybe the Earth is at the centre when all things are considered, God knows. But the Earth definitely goes around the sun. That is one of your tenets I disagree with. The other one is that the Earth is a flat disc of some kind. No, it is a globe as testified by many different witnesses and calculations.

    #833088
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    Mike said:


    T8 says:

    Scientists believe the moon was not always tidally locked to the Earth, thus space debris would have hit all over the moon in its past. And there is no reason to believe that the moon has always been tidally locked. Things change all the time in the universe like our climate. One support of this, is the fact that the far side of the moon has more craters, thus has been exposed directly in the path of space debris for a longer period than the near side.

    Here is an explanation as to why the moon is tidally locked and why we see this particular face of the moon as opposed to the far side of the moon being the near side. The explanation follows:

    Although the Moon looks like a sphere, it actually has a slight bulge. And billions of years ago, when the Moon was rotating much more quickly, showing its entire surface to the inhabitants of Earth, the Earth’s gravity tugged at this bulge with each rotation, slowing it down slightly each time until the Moon’s rotation was completely stopped from our perspective.

    In every simulation that the Caltech did, thanks to the orientation of this lunar bulge, either the Moon’s maria-side or crater-side ended up facing Earth. But the rate at which it slowed down – how fast it dissipated its rotational energy – defined our chances of seeing the “Man in the Moon”.

    If the Moon slowed down quickly, it would have been a 50/50 chance. But because the Moon slowed down more gradually, we had a much higher chance of seeing the maria-side as the final result. The maria-side was twice as likely to be our final view over the crater-side. The results of this research was published in the February 27th edition of the Journal Icarus.

    Source:
    https://www.universetoday.com/94110/why-does-the-man-in-the-moon-face-earth/

    #833092
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,005

    Stellarium

    Here is a software package that predicts all the eclipses. Try it out Mike.

    Then ask yourself how they know the eclipses in advance if it assumes the Earth is a sphere and it goes around the sun.

    http://stellarium.org/

    #833268
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,281

    T8:  Mike. Please explain how the Flat Earth model produces this effect?

    It’s uncanny how you keep posting things that destroy the heliocentric model, while thinking you are making a case.  I wasn’t aware that this last eclipses was also a top-down – a complete impossibility in your model.  On top of that, look at the daylight in that video!  That makes it also a selenelion eclipse, which is just as impossible in your model.

    I know why, and I also know that you “can’t be bothered to spend too much time looking into it”.  So, shall I explain to you why both of these are impossible in your model?  Or would you rather just imagine that they work in your model while I know for a fact they don’t?

    As for your question, the moon can have any light pattern God desires in the flat earth model – since the moon is its own light, and requires neither the earth nor the sun to cause the lighter parts or the darker parts.  In other words, the bright parts of the moon have nothing to do with the sun –  but with the moon itself running its God-appointed circuit and displaying it’s God-appointed patterns that serve for signs and times – months, seasons, and years.  And the dark parts have nothing whatsoever to do with the earth causing a shadow on it.  These are just stories you’ve been told.  Selenelion and top-down eclipses prove those stories wrong.

    T8, I’m happy to show you why these can’t work in your model.  Kathi’s iron has sharpened mine, and I now have a better handle on what to say and where to focus so you can easily see my points.

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 53 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2019 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account