- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
So you posted the math and circled the bits that were wrong or irrelevant? I will take a look back. Don’t know how I missed it. Hopefully I’m not wasting my precious time though looking for a post that is irrelevant.
Whilst looking for your posts that point out the errors of the math equation I posted, I found this little doozy.
Oh brother! LOL What we “know” about gravity? Gravity comes from the Latin word that simply means “weight”. It is a theory that has never been confirmed, and is unequivocally refuted by the fact that helium rises. There is no such thing as gravity.
Not so. The fact is we can use The Theory of Gravity to make predictions and it is still used today. It wasn’t perfect, but Einstein completed the theory.
Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that every mass attracts every other mass in the universe, and the gravitational force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. In his own words, “I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve; and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.”
Newton’s theory enjoyed its greatest success when it was used to predict the existence of Neptune based on motions of Uranus that could not be accounted by the actions of the other planets. Calculations by John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier both predicted the general position of the planet. Le Verrier’s sent his position to Johann Gottfried Galle, asking him to verify; in the same night, Galle spotted Neptune near the position Le Verrier had predicted.
Years later, it was another discrepancy in a planet’s orbit that showed Newton’s theory to be inaccurate. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that the orbit of Mercury could not be accounted for entirely under Newtonian gravity, and all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) have been fruitless. This issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein’s new general theory of relativity, which accounted for the discrepancy in Mercury’s orbit.
Paul Dirac developed the hypothesis that gravitation should have slowly and steadily decreased over the course of the history of the universe.[11]
Although Newton’s theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations still use it because it is much easier to work with and is sufficiently accurate for most applications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory
Now in that photo above, there should be a mile or more of bulge in the middle of that sea. If the sun can’t reflect on the observer’s side of little waves and ripples, how do you suppose it will reflect on the observer’s side of a mile high bulge?
Ripples and waves in the far distance would be too small to see, but light can reflect off the atmosphere as the atmosphere is a type of lense or firmanet made of h2o. It’s not made of glass as you think. Glass is created by melting sand.
@Mikeboll64, just as I thought, I wasted my time looking for this ghost post. A good way to spend Sunday morning, not.
What I did see are posts that I have already read and understand. I saw the race car one too and I completely understand what you are saying because the further out you go, the greater the distance needed to travel. However, my counter to all this was not to debunk that concept as I agree with it, but to provide a more accurate equation that explains it all. It is too easy to make a mistake by pure observation as both objects are moving and things can be missed. The equation if correct would prove it though as it would no longer be a case of observation only, but pure math. Unless you have a problem with the language of logic we call math, please show me where the equation is actually wrong or irrelevant. And I would appreciate you not sending me on a wild goose again because time is really precious to me. Of course as you stated that I may have dementia, please link me the post that I forgot about. Each post has a unique number and if you copy the link of that number and post it, it will jump me to the exact post. Nice and easy. But if you have not refuted the actual math at all, then here it is again. I only ask you to circle or point out which part is wrong or irrelevant. If you cannot do that, then that is my best answer and I will chalk it up as a win because you couldn’t refute it.
You can use 86,400 seconds as the length of the day, that times 28 days, the time it takes for one revolution of the moon around the Earth, is about 2,400,000 seconds. Using the distance to the moon as 225,000 miles (it varies but for this exercise, that’s close enough), which is the radius of the more or less circular path the moon takes around the Earth, it’s not circular but elliptical but lets call it circular for this discussion. So times 2 is the diameter, 450,000 miles, times pi makes that circle 1.4 million miles give or take. So divide 1,400,000 miles by 2,400,000 seconds and you find the moon traveling in its Earthy orbit going about 0.6 miles per second. Multiply that by 3600 and you get miles per hour, which is a bit over 2000 miles per hour. At the equator the Earth is spinning about 1000 miles per hour (it’s about 25,000 miles around and it takes 24 hours so divide the two and you get close to 1000 miles per hour) So the moon is going in it’s orbit twice as fast as the Earth spins on it’s axis. Since the rate of the moon’s spin is the same as it’s orbital period of about 28 days, you always see only one side of the moon. (not completely correct since it does wobble a bit and you can see just a bit around the ‘corner’ of the moon)
@Dig4Truth, this is for you too. Show me the error or which part of the equation is irrelevant.Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Just as I thought Mike, the Bible doesn’t actually teach that the whole Earth is flat. So it is really just down to science.
Lastly, your math is useless if you have never seen the moon travel from west to east. That is the only way the moon could produce a shadow going from west to east. It would have to be from our perspective on earth. In other words if we don’t see the moon going west to east then from our perspective it cannot produce a shadow going in that direction. Otherwise, the moon and its shadow would be going in opposite directions.
The first thing that comes to mind is angles Mike. Shadows here in Wellington have wide varying lengths due to the tilt of the earth and our position on the globe . Your premises always seem to come from 2D models and seem to ignore the third and sometimes fourth dimension. In summer shadows are short and winter they are very long. In between if you could speed up a video taken over the year, the shadows would be pulsating and probably have varying speed in acceleration and deceleration in size because even a one degree difference in angle which seems small and insignificant can create a big change in distance of lines and location.
Let’s pray for t8!
Mike, I think you’re on to the truth, we need to pray for healing for t8.
May you be blessed and healed by the power of the Holy One.
If you are going to pray for me, please pray that God will give me clear direction in life over 2019. Thanks guys. I’m contemplating moving to Australia late this year.
Dig, can you refute the math? If not, I will take it as the answer to the question and move onto another point.
🙂
Austraila! Hope that goes well and 2019 is a great year for!
The he math may be correct but the moon would have to go much faster than twice the rotational speed of the earth due to its orbital distance. Remember, like the cars on the racetrack than Mike illustrated? Can you dispute that?
By the way, should anyone wish to pray for me it would be that my doggie gets better. She went thru another dog attack and is still on the mend. She’s a real trooper but I’m a wreck!
If anyone wants the story I have a page that tells it, just personal message me and I’ll provide the link.
T8: Hidden is 4426.28 feet Mike with standard refraction. 5472.92 feet hidden assumes zero refraction… I will hopefully recalculate this all myself from scratch and see if I can reduce this with facts that possibly play a part such as using the refracted distance. If it turns out that refraction is not scientifically possible I will admit that the Earth Curve Calculator non-refraction calculation and agree to what part of the mountain should be missing…
There is no such thing as “standard refraction”, and so we’ll use the mathematically correct 5473 feet. Mick West, the owner of the MetaBunk website and the author of the ludicrous “standard refraction” idea is right now in some hot water with a PhD scientist. Turns out this PhD set out to shut the flat earthers up by doing his own experiments, and like anyone who SERIOUSLY tries to debunk the flat earth, he found that his results actually supported it. He made a video presentation of the scientific experiment, including all the measurements, tide level, barometer readings, blah, blah, blah, and his video results. Mick West then contacted him and told him he did a great job, but needs to include “standard refraction”. Mick didn’t know he was dealing with an expert in light properties… reflection, refraction, diffusion, etc. So the PhD challenged Mick to produce evidence of his silly idea that refraction can be “standard” by any definition of the word. Mick bailed, but the PhD didn’t let up. He kept making videos calling Mick to stand and defend his claim – since the PhD had all the pertinent measurements, and Mick was just shouting out a rescue device from across the world – without having ever even been to the sight of the experiment. Mick tucked tail and ran – and hasn’t responded since.
I’m happy to link you to the entire experiment and follow-up videos calling for Mick to produce his evidence or retract his unsubstantiated claim if you’d like. But either way, there can’t possibly be any such thing as “standard refraction” – as if the light from a particular distant city or whatever will refract exactly the same way every minute of every day, regardless of air temperature, pressure gradients, water temperature, humidity, etc. Nor can you just up and say, “Well I see the mountain that shouldn’t be seen in the unproven mathematical model in which I believe, therefore refraction is lifting the mountain up over the curve of the earth.”
We can’t just appeal to unproven hypotheticals just because the observations don’t align with the theory to which we adhere. Refraction is a very real thing, and I’ve even done a video about it myself. But which way would the light from the mountain have refracted on the day you took the photo? Down into the sea? Or up towards the sky? By what meticulous scientific measurements and calculations did you come to your conclusion?
So unless and until you can provide evidence that suggests any mountain (including the one you photographed) can be projected up and over a ball due to reflection, refraction, or some other property of light, we’ll have to suffice with the mathematical fact that a ball 25,000 miles in circumference will have a horizon drop rate of 8 inches per mile squared. After all, why would you assume that any refraction effects the day you took the photo would go in your favor, and not mine?
So you feel free to recalculate my calculations, and see if you come up with something other than 48% for 2000 feet of plateau, 45% for 2500 feet of plateau, and 40% for 3000 feet of plateau. Please don’t lollygag, as I’d love to put this Ruapehu thing to rest once and for all. I’d love for you to acknowledge that even giving you every possible benefit of the doubt, at least 40% of your mountain should be hidden behind curve… and that clearly isn’t the case.
T8: Mike, as an aside, can you explain why this calculator says the Planet Radius in Miles is 3959? Does that just mean that is what is visible in the diagram?
That’s what the ball proponents tell us the radius of the ball earth is. Diameter is 7917 miles, and circumference is about 25,000 miles.
T8: As you can see from the following shot, there are significant landscape features even before the mountain starts to take shape. This could easily be hidden from view in my Ruapehu shot in question.
It’s not “hidden from view”, only condensed due to distance and perspective. It’s similar to fence posts along the road. It’s easy to see that the ones close to you are 20 feet apart or whatever, but the farther you look down the road, the closer they appear to be to each other (until they finally blend into one), when in reality they are 20 feet apart at the other end of the road too. Or consider a big travel trailer. When you’re standing beside it, it’s 5 feet taller than you are. A few miles away, it’s about an inch tall. It didn’t really shrink as it moved away from you… it just got condensed due to distance and perspective. Your Ruapehu photo shows everything from the little town close to you, the 55 miles of sea, the beach and plateau of North Island, and Ruapehu. It’s just that all of it is condensed, both on your x axis and your y axis. (From top to bottom of your view, and from you to the mountain.) The farther away the thing is, the more it is condensed vertically and horizontally. That’s why the town in the foreground is huge, while the 55 miles of sea is more squished than the town, and the 70 miles from North Island beach to Ruapehu is more squished than the sea.
Anyway, those photos are beautiful, but not necessary to our discussion. We’ve both already agreed (for the sake of argument) that your photo shows only the mountain, and none of the beach, plateau, or anything else leading up to the mountain. Of course I know that all of those things are in your photo, but I’ve agreed that they aren’t just to show that you’re still seeing at least 40% of the mountain that you wouldn’t see if we lived on a ball.
D4T: Wow! Mike, that IR video of the moon was awesome!
Thanks man. I did one the next day and left it running long after the moon was out of view to the naked eye. I finally turned the IR camera off because I couldn’t see it in the viewfinder. When I loaded the video into my computer, it was there the entire time! And I just happened to have the scope set perfectly that time, so it was tracking beautifully! I was so mad at myself, and have been waiting for another opportunity since then. But work and clouds have been hampering my efforts so far. I’m praying for a clear night on the 20th so I can capture the entire lunar eclipse. 🙂
T8: So the moon is going in it’s orbit twice as fast as the Earth spins on it’s axis.
If I don’t hear back on this one, I will chalk it up for a win for Team Globe Earth. If that is irritating, then show me the error.
You’ve already heard back on it. Why not copy and paste the answer I gave all that time ago right after you posted the math quote the first time?
D4T: T8, which is your favorite verse that teaches a globe?
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Lastly, your math is useless if you have never seen the moon travel from west to east. That is the only way the moon could produce a shadow going from west to east. It would have to be from our perspective on earth. In other words if we don’t see the moon going west to east then from our perspective it cannot produce a shadow going in that direction. Otherwise, the moon and its shadow would be going in opposite directions.
As Mike pointed out the moon does not have enough speed relative to earth’s speed to produce such a shadow. He has explained this is an easy to understand way. Simply ignoring his points and copying and pasting the same old explanation without addressing Mike’s point only makes it look like you’re not listening.
I’ll see your Isaiah 40:22, and raise you a Proverbs 8:27…
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the deep…
A compass is a tool for drawing a circle on a flat surface. And I thought of another one the other day that I haven’t seen mentioned in those lists…
Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.Can our earth be “under the sun” in the heliocentric model? Anyway, I’m anxious to see T8’s first scripture that teaches of a spinning ball that orbits the sun. He thinks he’s making a point here if there isn’t a scripture that explicitly says, “the earth is flat”. But he’s forgetting that the entire Bible teaches of an immovable stationary earth fixed on pillars, covered by a domed, hard-as-glass firmament, in which the sun, moon and stars move around us overhead on their God-appointed circuits. As for the moon orbiting at twice the speed the earth rotates, all you have to do is consider that the earth rotates 30 times for each one moon orbit. So relative to each other, the moon actually orbits 30 times SLOWER than the earth rotates. (Of course that is according to their model and their figures. I don’t subscribe to any of that nonsense, but only use their own model against them.) As for the shadow going west to east, you need only ask if the shadow can move faster than the moon that casts it. Since it cannot, then for the shadow to go west to east on the earth, the moon must also be going west to east across the sky. Since that cannot happen in their model, neither can the shadow go west to east in their model.
T8: Not so. The fact is we can use The Theory of Gravity to make predictions and it is still used today. It wasn’t perfect, but Einstein completed the theory.
See how we’re all learning things we’d never thought of before – but just took for granted? We’ve learned that Newton’s idea of gravity isn’t correct after all, and that Einstein had to “fix it”. So Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity are two different formulas. Did you learn that in school? And now quantum mechanics is all the rage, and neither Newton’s nor Einstein’s idea of gravity works on that scale. So now what? Another new formula? And how does gravity work in relation to our expanding universe? Oh that’s right… it doesn’t. That’s why we’ve had to invent dark matter and dark energy. Or didn’t you know that either?
The bottom line is that nothing you just copied and pasted addresses my first rebuttal to the unsubstantiated, never proven idea of gravity. And that is the fact that helium rises. That, all by itself, kills the entire idea. Because the idea is that all objects with mass attract all other objects of mass. Helium has mass. So why doesn’t the massive gravitational pull of the earth attract it? It’s the same with methane, nitrogen, propane, and even smoke rising from a fire. All have mass – and all are unaffected by “gravity”.
T8: Years later, it was another discrepancy in a planet’s orbit that showed Newton’s theory to be inaccurate. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that the orbit of Mercury could not be accounted for entirely under Newtonian gravity, and all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) have been fruitless. This issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein’s new general theory of relativity, which accounted for the discrepancy in Mercury’s orbit.
But what about “standard refraction”? LOL Surely Mercury isn’t actually where we appear to see it in the sky, right? Surely what we see as Mercury is really just a refracted projection of it – just like the moon that we see set twice in one hour, right? 😀 So how were they able to make all those precise and accurate measurements of objects in the sky, and produce such a perfect model based on those observations, without taking “standard refraction” into account? Do you see how silly this whole thing is when you start to look into it a little?
And even today, why is D4T’s new tracking scope able to precisely find any star in the sky at any time just by typing the name of that star into the keypad? How could the stars possibly be where the scope thinks they are, when it doesn’t factor in refraction? You want us to believe that refraction can lift an entire mountain thousands of feet or even miles up over a curve and set it perfectly on a horizon from 100-200 miles away – but looking through the ENTIRE atmosphere for 6200 miles doesn’t refract the positions of the stars from night to night even one iota.
Mike: Now in that photo above, there should be a mile or more of bulge in the middle of that sea. If the sun can’t reflect on the observer’s side of little waves and ripples, how do you suppose it will reflect on the observer’s side of a mile high bulge?
T8: Ripples and waves in the far distance would be too small to see, but light can reflect off the atmosphere as the atmosphere is a type of lense or firmanet made of h2o…
T8, you’re not even trying any more. You’re just spouting the first asinine thing you can think of without even giving it any thought. If the light from the sun did reflect off the H2O lens firmament, why would it form itself into a line of light leading to your feet on the beach? If light did that, then we’d see those lines all the time – even after the sun went behind a mountain – because the sky would still be reflecting the light.
No T8, those reflection lines are always directly in line from you to the sun or moon – which itself has to be in clear view and unhindered by any mountains or clouds, etc. And therein lies the problem, because as the reflection would be blocked of by a mile high mountain being between you and the sun, it would also be blocked by a mile high bulge of curvature between you and the sun. Those straight line reflections can only reach your feet if the path is level. Many of people have shown this with street lights reflecting on wet roads. If you put just a tiny hill between you and the streetlight, the reflection is cut off from your feet.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
