Flat Earth?

This topic contains 2,753 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by  mikeboll64 2 hours, 34 minutes ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #830776
     Dig4truth 
    Participant
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 454

    Nick, how am I condemning science by doing “little” scientific experiments? Isn’t that kinda what science is?

    But let me ask you a question; when did you loose faith in what you can see? And more importantly, when did you loose faith in what God has said is true? Was it because of what the scientists told you?

    #830777
     GeneBalthrop 
    Participant
    • Topics started 42
    • Total replies 16,604

    Dig….Yes, i knew what a right triangel was 0ver 60 yrs ago, and also how to figure the drop in a circles circumference also. So now that you know how to figure the pathagram theram, you should have your answer to how to figure the earths drop. Apply the math, and show your decieved friend Mike also. Do the math, it is easy, and believe the tons and tons of proofs the earth is indeed round.

    Everything you people have produced has been explaind clearly by hundred of sites that debuncks everything you people say. But if God blinds a person, they will believe anything, a deluding spirit sent from God, who sends to people who love not the truth, causes them not to except the truth, no matter how much actual proof is given them.

    You Flat Earthers are truly not living in reality. This whole thing is nothing but a waste of time and effort. IMO.

    Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene

    #830781
     Dig4truth 
    Participant
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 454

    Gene, I’m glad you understand the calculation of the earth’s curvature. Could you then explain how the Statue of Liberty can be seen from 50-60 miles away? What is your explanation? Should it be able to be seen in the first place?

     

    At an observer’s height of 10 feet at a distance of 60 miles the hidden curvature should be 2,100 feet! The height of the Statue of Liberty is 305 feet from the base to the top.

    (Now this is simple math)

    Is 2,100 larger than 305?

     

    The height of the Statue of Liberty is 151 ft. from the base to the torch. With the pedestal and foundation included in the measurement, the full height is 305 ft.

     

     

    This is called evidence and science.

    #830782
     Dig4truth 
    Participant
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 454

    Mike: “How about these natural Jenga blocks?”

     

    Now that is nature playing a trick on the globe disciples. Thanks for commenting though, no one else has. I wonder why.

    #830783
     NickHassan 
    Participant
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 70,962

    Hi Dig4,

    ‘Why did you doubt?’

    #830787
     GeneBalthrop 
    Participant
    • Topics started 42
    • Total replies 16,604

    Dig….it’s not about me knowing it’s about YOU knowing how to figure it. I wasn’t showing myself how, i was showing you how to figure the earths drop. Instead of saying o i see now, and yes we can figure out the earths drop by applying the math. You completely change subject matter. No wonder you people are unable to see the proofs given you. You people are not interested in real proof at all. A bounch of smoke and mirrors. Sinply AMAZING!

    Peace and love …….gene

    #830797
     Dig4truth 
    Participant
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 454

    Gene you’re not making a whole lot of sense here. I began by using the globe earth math to prove that objects can be seen further than they should be able to be seen. Do you understand that?

    Gene, it’s a simple question, how can the Statue of Liberty be seen from 50 or 60 miles away on globe earth?

    #830802
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,254

    Or better yet… Gene, SHOULD the Statue of Liberty be able to be seen from 60 miles using your math? A simple yes or no will suffice.

    #830819
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 903
    • Total replies 18,820

    Dig. There you go posting more videos or photos of globe earth proofs. You can clearly see the bottom is being cut off and we know refraction changes the calculation somewhat as the calculations are based on zero moisture in the atmosphere.

    Again, I see lots of water in the image/video, so that would suggest slightly more than zero moisture I would have thought.

    #830822
     Admin 
    Keymaster
    • Topics started 92
    • Total replies 1,287

    Hi Mike.

    In case you were wondering.

    I noticed in your first post, you detached most of the images and later you posted a new image and that got added as an attachment to the first post.

    To explain what is going on here, I beleive this is not a bug, but a feature.

    It seems if you start a topic, that all files you attach later in the topic appear in that first post so people can download them without having to always look for them in the topic.

    Of course, if you do not like this feature, you are free to detach the images from there.

    #830818
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 903
    • Total replies 18,820

    Really? You should stick to what you are good at Mike.

    Q: Would it be possible to throw a ball in the air and catch it if I were travelling at 100mph on a motorbike?
    A: Probably not.

    Q: Would it be possible to throw a ball in the air and catch it if I were travelling at 100mph in  a car?
    A: Most likely yes.

    The Earth is like that car, not the motorbike as you assume. The atmosphere is moving with the Earth.

    Hasn’t this already been explained?

    #830821
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 903
    • Total replies 18,820

    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?

    I googled it for you. Haven’t got time to check this out though.


     

    If you’re talking about this experiment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37y-MSBU6iY

    then the answer is one that any amateur astronomer can know.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling

    The night sky is cold.

    Objects exposed to the night sky will radiate their heat into it. Objects exposed to less of the sky (such as under a tree) can “see” less of the sky and will radiate less heat to the sky.

    Its the same reason amateur astronomers put tubes in front of their telescopes.

    http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/dealing-with-dew/

    The anti-dew tubes have no optics and can be made of anything you fancy. They do nothing except stop the lens at the front “seeing” a large part of the sky.

    That article says “grass in the middle of a field that is white with frost or dew canb show no frost while grass near a tree. It’s exactly the same effect as the “shade” in the youtube video.

    #830817
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 903
    • Total replies 18,820

    The circuit of the sun and the going down of the sun

    Mike believes when King David talks about the circuit of the sun, he says that supports the geocentric model and is proof that the heliocentric model is wrong, even though the heliocentric model gives us the perspective of the sun circuiting. It is the perspective nature of the description that he has a problem with and believes it should be literal no matter how far you zoom out.

    So I brought up the fact that scripture talks about the sun rising and setting and he knows that he has to deny this fact at all costs, otherwise he sees the glaring hypocrisy that I see. The reason is because in the geocentric model, the sun neither rises or sets when you zoom out. It seems he is free to cherry pick when to take what King David says as absolutely literal without using perspective and when to deny any verse that contradicts his strict interpretation of such scriptures and apply perspective. So I am going to list the verses that talk about the sun setting in scripture. Just know, that he currently has to deny that the sun sets or goes down. I don’t want to wish him good luck either because I really just want the truth to win to be honest.

    Psalm 113:3
    From the rising of the sun to its setting The name of the LORD is to be praised.

    Genesis 15:12
    Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him.

    Genesis 15:17
    It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.

    Genesis 28:11
    He came to a certain place and spent the night there, because the sun had set; and he took one of the stones of the place and put it under his head, and lay down in that place.

    Deuteronomy 16:6
    but at the place where the LORD your God chooses to establish His name, you shall sacrifice the Passover in the evening at sunset, at the time that you came out of Egypt.

    Exodus 22:26
    “If you ever take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets,

    Deuteronomy 24:13
    When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God.

    Deuteronomy 24:15
    “You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he will not cry against you to the LORD and it become sin in you.

    Leviticus 22:7
    ‘But when the sun sets, he will be clean, and afterward he shall eat of the holy gifts, for it is his food.

    Joshua 8:29
    He hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua gave command and they took his body down from the tree and threw it at the entrance of the city gate, and raised over it a great heap of stones that stands to this day.

    Joshua 10:27
    It came about at sunset that Joshua gave a command, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves, and put large stones over the mouth of the cave, to this very day.

    1 Kings 22:36
    Then a cry passed throughout the army close to sunset, saying, “Every man to his city and every man to his country.”

    Daniel 6:14
    Then, as soon as the king heard this statement, he was deeply distressed and set his mind on delivering Daniel; and even until sunset he kept exerting himself to rescue him.

    Exodus 17:12
    But Moses’ hands were heavy. Then they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it; and Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other. Thus his hands were steady until the sun set.

    2 Samuel 3:35
    Then all the people came to persuade David to eat bread while it was still day; but David vowed, saying, “May God do so to me, and more also, if I taste bread or anything else before the sun goes down.”

    Micah 3:6
    Therefore it will be night for you–without vision, And darkness for you–without divination The sun will go down on the prophets, And the day will become dark over them.

    Conclusion: If we take descriptions of heavenly bodies as literal no matter how far you zoom out or no matter where your vantage point is, then the Flat Earth model cannot be true because the sun doesn’t go down or set in the Flat Earth model. 

    #830827
     Lightenup 
    Participant
    • Topics started 63
    • Total replies 10,307

    Seems to me that I could stack Jenga blocks on a fold down tray in an airplane on a smooth flight without a problem while it zooms through the sky following the curvature of the earth. A turbulent flight would be different.

    #830837
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 903
    • Total replies 18,820

    Globe Earth video

    I thought it would be good to have a sort of video competition where I or others post good examples of Globe Earth videos and Mike and Dig could post videos of  the Flat Earth disk.

    I will start with this one. Mike/Dig, you turn to post a video. I’m getting all excited now wondering what the disk and dome looks like,

    #830851
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 903
    • Total replies 18,820

    Mike, you go on about how the current understanding of the universe removes God.

    In actual fact, it is the opposite. The latest discoveries have unravelled the existence of God.

    https://heavennet.net/the-signs-of-gods-existence/

    Romans 1:20
    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    #830852
     Dig4truth 
    Participant
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 454

    Lightenup: “Seems to me that I could stack Jenga blocks on a fold down tray in an airplane on a smooth flight without a problem while it zooms through the sky following the curvature of the earth. A turbulent flight would be different.”

     

    Assuming the plane was going around a curve then the blocks would not be straight up and down. They would constantly be tilted in the forward direction. In fact it would be tilting down twice the normal rate if the plane were traveling at the speed of the earth at the equator (500 mph vs 1,000 mph).  When I have played Jenga this would have caused the stack to come crashing down. It would be an interesting game to try to play on a plane though the flight attendant may not think so.

    However, I want to bring up a point that t8 made and is also assumed in your example. T8 said that it would be like a ride in a car rather than on a motorcycle and you used the airplane example. Both examples must have a firmament for this thought experiment to work. In the case of the car the firmament is the roof and in the airplane it is the body of the plane.

    Without a firmament there could be no way that the Jenga blocks could stand up.

    #830934
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,254

    Kathi:  Hi Mike,

    You have not debunked where the birds fly, not if you really look at the Hebrew. The word “Firmament” evolved from Greek influence apparently, but was not the Hebrew definition.

    I’ve already gone through this with you, and you didn’t respond way back then.  Why now?  Here’s what we know for sure…

    1.  The Hebrew word “raqia” refers to a solid entity that separates the waters above it from the waters below it.
    2.  Job compared it to molten glass.
    3. Ezekiel said it God’s throne sits on it.
    4. All ancient cultures considered it a solid dome-like structure.
    5. Genesis 1:20 says the birds fly in the face of the firmament, ie:  in front of it, on the earth side of it.
    6. Even theistic evolutionists who adhere to secular cosmology acknowledge that, for the Hebrews, it was a solid dome like structure that birds flew in front of, not “in”…

    The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid…

    1. The other cosmologies from the ancient world depict some solid structure in the sky. The most natural explanation of the raqia is that it also reflects this understanding. There is no indication that Genesis is a novel description of the sky;

    2.  Virtually every description of raqia from antiquity to the Renaissance depicts it as solid. The non-solid interpretation of raqia is a novelty;

    3.  According to the flood story in Gen 7:11 and 8:2, the waters above were held back only to be released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”);

    4.  Other Old Testament passages are consistent with the raqia being solid (Ezekiel1:22; Job 37:18; Psalm 148:4);

    5.  According to Gen 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia;

    6.  The noun raqia is derived form the verb that means to beat out or stamp out, as in hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus 39:3). This suggests that the noun form is likewise related to something solid;

    7.  Speaking of the sky as being stretched out like a canopy/tent (Isaiah 40:22) or that it will roll up like a scroll (34:4) are clearly similes and do not support the view that raqia in Genesis 1 is non-solid.

    https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-thats-not-the-point

     

    I hope that helps!

    #830935
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,254

    T8:  I noticed in your first post, you detached most of the images and later you posted a new image and that got added as an attachment to the first post.

    To explain what is going on here, I beleive this is not a bug, but a feature.

    It seems if you start a topic, that all files you attach later in the topic appear in that first post so people can download them without having to always look for them in the topic.

    Of course, if you do not like this feature, you are free to detach the images from there.

    What do you mean, “I believe”?  Don’t you build websites like this for a living?  😀  Anyway, I wouldn’t have even noticed that the OP had 20 images attached to it if I didn’t get sent to page 1 every time I load the thread, make a post, or make an edit.  🙂

    #830941
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 79
    • Total replies 25,254

    T8:  Really? You should stick to what you are good at Mike.

    You mean deciphering the truth from the twisted maze of lies and deceptions that govern this world – like we both did with the Trinity Doctrine?  Or perhaps you mean keeping scripture as my authority, despite the deceptive signs and wonders of the god of this world, and the lies of the men who serve him?  Or did you mean I’m good at asking you simple, easy-to-answer questions that you nevertheless refuse to answer?

    T8:  The atmosphere is moving with the Earth.  Hasn’t this already been explained?

    It has been claimed by certain men, and blindly believed by billions of others, but no, it has not been “explained”.  Please do so if you can.  Be sure to include the empirical scientific evidence that is observable, testable, repeatable, and does not directly contradict known laws of physics – like 2LoT.  Also, be sure not to invoke other unobservable and untestable hypothetical entities, like gravity, as a means of explaining your first hypothetical entity of an atmosphere that is somehow affixed to the earth, and rotates exponentially faster than the earth the further you go out.

     

Viewing 20 posts - 1,761 through 1,780 (of 2,754 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