- This topic has 60 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
T8: Try predicting the next eclipse with the Flat Earth model. You can’t.
Sure I can. For example, I witnessed and photographed the blood moon top-down selenelion eclipse of 1-31-18, right? I predict there will be an identical eclipse on 2-11-2036… if the world lasts until then.
T8: 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.
No, the elites don’t have a moon remote control of which I’m aware. 🙂 But neither is it “all luck”. The explanation is the saros cycle. Because God set up the luminaries in the heavens as a huge timepiece, we can use them for times and seasons and months and years. The saros cycle is a period of 18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours. One saros period after an eclipse, an identical eclipse will occur. So if I add that amount of time to the 1-31-18 eclipse that I witnessed, I can “predict” that we’ll have an identical eclipse 2-11-36. Of course the 8 hours part of the cycle means the eclipse will occur in a different part of the world, so I might have to go to England to see the twin of my 1-31-18 eclipse.
But here, see for yourself. This is an illustration of the 1-31-18 eclipse from timeanddate.com…
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/lunar/2018-january-31
And here’s the one for 2-11-2036…
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/lunar/2036-february-11
Notice how they are identical.
T8: You can’t put out early notices like this using the Flat Earth model can you?
Yes. I figured out the 2-11-36 eclipse in my head first, and then Googled it to see the results. I haven’t Googled this one, but I predict we’ll have another identical eclipse on 2-23-2054. Check to see if I’m right.
T8: 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.Ah… but where did NASA and Stellarium learn it from? You might be shocked to find out that, according to Wiki…
The earliest discovered historical record of what is known as the saros is by Chaldean(neo-Babylonian) astronomers in the last several centuries BC.[2][3][4] It was later known to Hipparchus, Pliny[5] and Ptolemy.[6]
According to Tony Freeth, in an article for Scientific American, mechanical calculation of the saros cycle is built into the Antikythera mechanism.[9]
This cycle has been known at least since ancient Babylonian times… when everybody was a flat earther.
T8: Lack of prediction is a major fail for the Flat Earth.
So then what does it mean that the flat earthers were predicting eclipses thousands of years into the future – thousands of years before NASA and “space travel” even existed? What does it mean that NASA’s site merely posts the predictions that have been known for thousands of years? And what does it mean that you and I have been led into believing that brilliant heliocentric mathematicians have the universe so figured out that they can predict thousands of years of eclipses… when in reality these predictions have been known hundreds (if not thousands) of years before Jesus dwelt among us?
The way the Solar System works, it can clearly be demonstrated to fit the math and historical data. The Flat Earth model doesn’t have a chance of doing that.
Explain to me how you can demonstrate how the FE model creates this eclipse effect coz I am not seeing it.
Here’s a demonstration of how observations in the real world do not match what you would get on a Flat Earth but work perfectly fine in a Globe Earth.
T8: The way the Solar System works, it can clearly be demonstrated to fit the math and historical data.
Do you actually know something about the way the so-called solar system works? Are you fluent in the math, to the point we can discuss it? If not, then I will leave you with the fact that anyone can create a mathematical formula for anything. The formula can work perfectly, whether or not it has any relation to reality… just as Ptolemy’s geocentric model with sun and moon orbiting around us worked perfectly for thousands of years before Copernicus made his own model with the earth and moon orbiting around the sun (which, btw, he considered to be his God). And this fact is why Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein all readily admitted that heliocentricity was only a model, and that whether the earth was stationary or the sun was stationary was only a matter of how one wanted to see it. This fact is also why famous cosmologist George Ellis, as late as 1995, said he could make a mathematical formula that puts the earth at the center of everything, and nobody could disprove it based on observations, but could only disagree with it on philosophical grounds. T8, did you read the things I just wrote? Can you understand those things? Do you have questions about them? Would you like to discuss them? Or will you keep on ignoring them as you’ve done so far?
As for the historical data, didn’t I just show you that it was compiled thousands of years ago by people who knew the earth was flat and stationary? Please respond to that post, as I am curious to know how you felt when you found out that NASA has merely copied information from flat earthers and passed it off as its own.
T8: The Flat Earth model doesn’t have a chance of doing that.
The flat earth model has already done it… millennia before there even existed the deceptive Satan-worshipping organization known as NASA.
T8: Explain to me how you can demonstrate how the FE model creates this eclipse effect coz I am not seeing it.
It’s like you’re just not hearing me. The way you keep ignoring the things D4T and I say, and bringing up the same points over and over reminds me of an old line by comedian Steven Wright… “If once in a while you don’t hear me, it’s because sometimes I speak in parentheses.” 🙂
Am I speaking in parentheses or something? Because it seems to me that I just explained to you that, according to scripture and flat earthers, THE MOON IS ITS OWN LIGHT. (Did you hear it that time?) THE LIGHT AND DARK PATTERNS ON THE MOON HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUN HITTING PART OF IT, OR THE EARTH SHADOWING PART OF IT.
So imagine that the earth is a square box, and we all live on the top of it. (Because living on the sides or bottom of a box would be as absurd as living on the sides or bottom of a spinning ball, right? 😀 ) Now imagine that there is no sun, nor any stars. Imagine that the moon is the ONLY thing in the sky above us box-dwellers. We would STILL see the same timely light and dark patterns on the moon without a sun and without a ball earth – BECAUSE THE MOON IS ITS OWN LIGHT, and God has designed it to display different light and dark patterns throughout the lunar month.
T8: Here’s a demonstration of how observations in the real world do not match what you would get on a Flat Earth but work perfectly fine in a Globe Earth.
On what research did you base your conclusion that star trails don’t match a flat earth? What do you personally know about it? Have you looked into it at all? Or have you once again just Googled “flat earth debunked”, and posted yet another video that you can’t personally explain?
Do you realize that this has been the bulk of your contributions to either thread… merely copying and pasting links without knowing or explaining the first thing about the information in those links?
No such luck in this thread, buddy. You’re going to have to either stand and defend your claims, or be exposed as an ignorant blowhard who doesn’t know the first thing about the crap he’s blindly posting. Right now, here’s where we’re at…
- 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?
- Do you finally understand that any so-called “eclipse” will work on the flat earth model, since we agree with the scriptures that say the moon is its own light source, and therefore the patterns on it have nothing to do with light from the sun, or shadows from the earth?
I brought up the first, and you brought up the second. I am willing to discuss these things for as long as it takes, but I’m going to need some direct, succinct, and honest answers to them.
T8: Scientists believe the moon was not always tidally locked to the Earth…
Learn to recognize indoctrination phrases like “scientists believe”. The majority of all science articles include these words, but most don’t elaborate on them. For example, which scientists believe this? Do all of them believe it? Of the ones who do, on what did they base this belief? Is the belief based on empirical science, that can be observed, tested, and repeated? Or is it based on philosophy and a preconceived worldview? Is their belief the ONLY way it could have happened? Or are there other options that would work equally well?
These are a few questions you need to ask yourself anytime you see that phrase, T8… because the answers will shock you. For example, in this case, has any scientist actually observed the moon before it was “tidally locked”? Did anyone observe the moon going from a non-locked state to the current locked state? Can we test this transformation from non-locked to locked in a lab environment? Can we repeat the test multiple times to verify the same result occur each time? Because if the answer to any of these is “NO”, then these philosophical ponderings don’t even qualify as science to begin with, and the “belief” of these unnamed scientists is baseless and worthless. And no amount of computer simulations (which are designed specifically to get certain results) are going to change this fact.
Let me let you in on a little secret. It is a quote from Dr. Colin Patterson, a staunch evolutionist who was the curator of the prestigious British Museum of Natural History. Read it carefully…
“Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test…
If we accept Popper’s distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical)…. Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test.”
Get the picture? Unique historical events are not even a part of science, because they cannot be observed, tested and repeated. Btw, do you realize that the people you are quoting are the same ones who say the moon was created when another planet crashed into the earth? These people don’t believe in a creator at all – let alone Jehovah. They laugh at you for believing in God. They think you’re a moron who’s made up an imaginary friend to make you feel like you’re special and not just some loser who is going to turn into worm food some day. These are the people you’re siding with in direct contradiction to the Bible, T8. Do you think that is a smart move? Do you think Jehovah would approve?
Mike. The Solar System model explains eclipses visually and the visual representation fits the math or historical data.
So my question to you is this:
“Show me how the Flat earth model creates an eclipse?”
Then explain to me how it visually fits the data or historical data without relying on math alone. I want to see how the model fits the data and can be used to predict the data visually.
You can use the video I posted and start with the basics for me. How is the eclipse observation from our view created in the Flat Earth model because I cannot imagine it. Maybe I just lack imagination. Help me out here. Please stick to the FE model on this question rather than just attacking the Solar System model.
Mike: 1. When was mankind finally able to PROVE that the earth is a spinning ball orbiting the sun and hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour?
2. Do you finally understand that any so-called “eclipse” will work on the flat earth model, since we agree with the scriptures that say the moon is its own light source, and therefore the patterns on it have nothing to do with light from the sun, or shadows from the earth?
I brought up the first, and you brought up the second. I am willing to discuss these things for as long as it takes, but I’m going to need some direct, succinct, and honest answers to them.
T8: So my question to you is this:
“Show me how the Flat earth model creates an eclipse?”
You have a couple of questions already waiting before you get to ask another. Besides, the second question (and my last post) answers your question. In summary, the shape of the earth has nothing to do with the light and dark patterns on the moon, since the earth has nothing to do with the light and dark patterns on the moon. Understand? How about lightning? Scripture says it lights up the sky from one part of the heavens to the other. How does God make that work? How does He control it, and make it occur where and when He wants it to? I don’t know the particulars. Nor do I know the particulars of how exactly God makes the light and dark patterns on the moon, or how He causes those patterns to change during the month. I only know that the moon is its own light, and that God has designed it so we could use it to mark times and seasons.
Hey, I just remembered there is a third question you haven’t answered yet…
3. What was your reaction to finding out that NASA has passed off these predictions as their own – the work of industrious mathematical geniuses – when they were really just copied and pasted from ancient Babylonian charts?
- Not sure there was any one time. Evidence accumulation led to it probably.
- I understand your point, but it fails. The Globe Earth model visualises the predictions of eclipses in the future (and past) with 100% logical accuracy while the Flat Earth model cannot make one demonstrable visual prediction. That is, you cannot demonstrate it visually with your model. That’s a huge fail Mike, it really is.
- I like most people do not care if NASA came up with the figures or just use already known math. The point is they publish this and you can reference it and it is 100% as far as I can tell at least. I don’t think the Babylonians have a website where they publish this info.
Fact: The globe model can visually explain the math, while the Flat Earth model cannot.
“Show me how the Flat earth model creates an eclipse?”
Please show me a video or a gif of how an eclipse happens in the Flat Earth model.
Then explain how it fits the math. The Globe Earth model can demonstrate this. If the Flat Earth model cannot, then it is a failed model.
T8: Not sure there was any one time. Evidence accumulation led to it probably.
So you believe in a spinning ball orbiting the sun and flying through an endless vacuum at millions of miles per hour because “evidence accumulation led to it probably“? But you can’t provide the pièce de résistance – the one undeniable piece of empirical scientific evidence that settled the issue once and for all? Uh… that’s because there is no such thing. Never has been, and never will be. Time for you to face the facts, T8: If you cannot point me to the moment or experiment or observation that proved the helical model beyond any doubt, then you need to man up and accept the fact that this nonsensical, anti-Biblical model has never been proven. I’m only laying truth on you, dude. Whether or not your indoctrination allows you to accept that truth has no bearing on the matter.
T8: I understand your point, but it fails. The Globe Earth model visualises the predictions of eclipses in the future (and past) with 100% logical accuracy while the Flat Earth model cannot make one demonstrable visual prediction. That is, you cannot demonstrate it visually with your model. That’s a huge fail Mike, it really is.
They also “visualize” how space clouds squished together to make the sun without a Creator, right? Does that make it reality? Is the fact that we cannot demonstrate how God created the sun a huge fail on our part? Again…
1. NASA’s predictions come from the saros cycle that was used by flat earthers everywhere for centuries before Jesus was made flesh and dwelt among us.
2. NASA’s visualization model is demonstrably false, since it can be shown via observation that the sun is not what lights the moon, and the earth is not what causes the light and dark patterns on it.
Can you really not understand this? You say you see my point, but if my Bible-based point is accurate, then the model that NASA presents of the sun lighting the moon and the earth causing eclipses on it is false. And therefore it doesn’t matter which model they “visualize”, since the underlying premise is flawed. They could “visualize” that it is really a dark moon in the sky that eclipses the bright moon, and make all kinds of mathematical formulas to support that model. Would this “visualization” prove that there really is a dark moon that eclipses the bright one? Of course not.
This is my Bible-based statement: The sun is not what lights the moon, nor does the earth ever cause a shadow on it. The moon is it’s own light source, and the patterns of light and dark throughout the month are built into it by God.
T8: I like most people do not care if NASA came up with the figures or just use already known math. The point is they publish this and you can reference it and it is 100% as far as I can tell at least. I don’t think the Babylonians have a website where they publish this info.
Really? 😀 The Babylonians didn’t have a website, therefore NASA wins? LOL. Just know that the precise predictions were worked out millenia ago by flat earthers, and that NASA leads people to believe that their ingenious mathematicians worked these things out based on the heliocentric model – because they are an organization based on deception.
Think about it… you didn’t know about the ancient saros cycle until I told you about it. All your life you’ve believed that brilliant NASA scientists figured out how to predict eclipses based on the heliocentric model – when nothing could be further from the truth. You believed that because it’s exactly what they wanted you to believe. And now you say you “do not care” that they deceived you your entire life. So sad.
T8: Show me how the Flat earth model creates an eclipse?
Okay. Here’s the new moon phase…
1/4 moon…
1/2 moon…
3/4 moon…
Full moon…
Understand? The object is its own light source, and has been programmed to display different patterns of light and dark throughout a given time period. When part of it is dark, it doesn’t mean the whole thing’s really light and something is shadowing the dark part. It means that it was pre-programmed to be part light and part dark at that particular time.
I forgot about this topic.
And that explanation is hilarious.
Where is your proof that the moon is simply lighting more or less LED bulbs.
And why would it do that when the earth is in certain positions that miraculously coincide with the Earth’s shadow or curve in the heliocentric model.
You have zero percent science and 100% imaginative delusion.
So the heliocentric model visualizes the Math in fact the math is based on it.
And the Flat Earth geniuses come up with LED bulbs.
Seriously, some people should have learned a long tine ago that they were no cut out for science.
Mike, you say the heliocentric model has problems but then you are corrected. So what are the chances that any so-called faults you hold to currently will also be corrected? As it stands from your understanding it mostly works, just a little out here and there. You focus on the speck and ignore the plank.
Yet your model has zero evidence and is not even clever, nevertheless you subscribe to that. This is neither science or faith. It is a perfect example of blind faith.
More personal proof of the globe earth
A friend of mine took this photo. It is of Mt Taranaki, another volcano near Ruapehu. Photo was taken further north from my location where I took the Ruapehu photo. You can see some serious refraction going on in the shot as the bottom of the shape looks lifted up. It also looks like an island when in actual fact, the volcano sits in the middle of a huge peninsula or bulge.
You can definitely see the effect of curvature as this is just the top of the volcano in view. And the land below and much of the mountain is over the horizon so you see water on the near side instead of the land on the other side of the curve.
Explain this Mike using the flat earth model.
Map
Stratford on the map is between the volcano and hills. In the photo that area is water. Obviously water on the near side of the horizon with the low lying land behind the curve.
Closeup of Mt Taranaki showing it is not an island
My closeup of Mt Taranaki
I am standing on farmland that is water in the top photo of this post. This is what you expect to see if the earth is a globe. The volcano is not a small island surrounded by water which that photo would suggest if the earth was flat.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
