- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Step 1) Make sure both Moon and Sun are around the same size and make the Earth a lot bigger.
Step 2) Put the Earth directly underneath the moon using the same line direction from the sun to the moon.
Step 3) Push the moon upward in the graphic till it is about the same distance from the Earth but perhaps a few pixels further.
T8: Explain the sun going down then. Your view is at odds with the sun going down Mike. You can’t cherry pick. If you are going to make a universal statement, then apply it to the sun going down too. Otherwise you are being hypocritical.
I have addressed your “sun going down” claim at least 5 or 6 different times on this thread. What’s the point in talking when there’s nobody listening? But just so you know (if you actually read it this time), there are ZERO scriptures that say the sun “rises”, “goes down”, or “sets”. Those words are translated into English by biased heliocentric translators. The Hebrew words – IN EVERY SINGLE CASE – have a meaning of “coming out/appearing” and “going in”. In fact, I just said this to D4T 2 days ago…
Also, please check out this page…
https://biblehub.com/text/ecclesiastes/1-5.htm
It has the Hebrew words that make up that Ecclesiastes verse you just posted. If you hover over the Strong’s numbers, you’ll see the verse actually says the sun comes out and the sun goes in, and hastens to the place from where it comes out again.
The only way scripture says the sun rises or sets is if the translator chooses to use “rise” or “set” for those Hebrew words. But since everybody who wrote scripture and all of their contemporaries knew that the sun and moon ran appointed circuits in a dome that covered the flat earth, they wouldn’t have used the meaning of “rise” or “set”. They all knew it was really coming out from and going back into its chambers. This sunrise and sunset thing is just a stubborn last vestige of our awakening. We’ve been so thoroughly indoctrinated into thinking the sun goes over a curved earth and comes back into view over that same curved earth that it’s hard to get it out of our heads. It’s kind of like the word “atmosphere” that we still use – despite knowing we don’t live on a sphere. It is really an atmosplane.
But to the ancient Hebrews who wrote scripture, the idea of a sun “rising” or “setting” would have been as odd as us seeing a plane disappear on the horizon and saying the plane had “set”. Or seeing clouds merge with the distant horizon and saying those clouds had “set”. We don’t say “set” or “rise” when it comes to planes and clouds, because even though they have the same appearance as the sun and moon disappearing at the horizon, we know that the plane and the clouds are still just as high off the earth as they were when they were directly over our heads. And notice I said “disappearing AT the horizon”, not “over” it. That is another one we’ll have to train ourselves on – since nothing is going “over” any horizon. It just disappears into the atmosplane AT our horizon.
So saying “the sun set” would be as absurd to the ancient cultures as saying “the plane set” is to us.
Peace
So T8, would we say a plane “sets” when it disappears AT the horizon? No? Well then rest assured that no Hebrew who knew the earth was stationary with the sun and moon moving overhead would ever even consider that the sun was “setting” over the horizon. They said the sun had “come out”, “appeared”, or “went in”.
Okay, I’m done until you tell me exactly WHY a scripture that clearly says a normally moving sun stopped in the midst of heaven can’t MEAN a normally moving sun stopped in the midst of heaven. I don’t want to hear about perspective. Or God explaining things according to our current knowledge or whatever. I don’t want to hear about eclipses. I still can’t believe you fell for that crap, but it just goes to show how gullible people are when they’d rather just blindly believe some tripe that wouldn’t even work instead of thinking things out for themselves. Anyway, I’m tired of all that crap. What I want to know – directly and honestly – is…
Why couldn’t that Joshua passage be talking about a sun that normally moves over the surface of a stationary earth being stopped in its place in the sky for a whole day, after which it continued on its regular God-appointed circuit over the earth?
Your answer must start with, “It cannot possibly mean that because…”
If it doesn’t start with those words and finish with a reason, we’re done here.
T8: Step 1) Make sure both Moon and Sun are around the same size and make the Earth a lot bigger.
Step 2) Put the Earth directly underneath the moon using the same line direction from the sun to the moon.
Step 3) Push the moon upward in the graphic till it is about the same distance from the Earth but perhaps a few pixels further.
Maybe this real time animation from timeanddate.com will help…
I’ve set it to where the moon is waxing gibbous. I circled the waxing gibbous moon in red. The question is whether light reflected from the lit side of the earth could reflect to the unlit side of that waxing gibbous moon. In other words, will light follow my red wavy path to hit the back of that moon?
A simple YES or NO is the only chance you have left. You can give your reasons afterwards, but your answer must begin with either a YES or a NO.
Mike, I just started reading about 3 pages of this and I don’t think I can “reflect” all of your excellent points! So let me just summarize by saying that I wouldn’t to take you on about the moon! You have done your research and make solid points that unless someone is simply bluffing their way around an argument they would have to say uncle!
I have found the arguments against your points, well pointless. Rarely do they address the issue and even more infrequently do they make a valid counterpoint.
I concur with your sentiment about putting your energy into the videos because the interest here has declined and the few who respond do so without proper debate etiquette, in my opinion. If we wanted this type of obfuscation we could have stayed on the creation evolution debate forum.
I think you’re off to bigger and better things! But we can check back to see if anyone has listened and to post some awesome videos of course!
Mike, I don’t have to jump through your hoops to prove to myself if your theory is correct or not. I don’t need to waste my time understanding how an eclipse can take place while a a gibbon is waxing himself. Just get 3 soccer balls and place them on the floor. You will easily be able to get a configuration where light can bounce off the earth and back to the earth via the moon.
Further, I haven’t tested everything you say due to time, but of what I have tested, I proved for myself they were ALL based on wrong assumptions.
- The ball bearing on the table experiment proved to me that light travels in straight lines. THe bottom of the marble didn’t disappear when the experiment was conducted correctly.
- The boat that was brought back from a distance further than the horizon was false. It was on the near side of the horizon. Proof was a similar video of a small boat with the same zooming in and out and appearing and disappearing of the boat, except there were also big boats and they could not be brought back. They were hidden from the bottom up no matter what.
- Flat Earth distances in the Southern Hemisphere are dead wrong. I have travelled between Wellington and Perth and back and the distance is definitely nowhere near what a Flat Earth would have us believe.
- The Antarctica is not a policed rim of a disk where 10,000 patrol boats cover the perimeter to not let anyone through. New Zealand has territory in Antarctica and New Zealanders go there all the time. Qantas have a commercial flight over the frozen continent if you are willing to shell our a few thousand bucks.
https://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
They also have flights that cross Antarctica from Australia to South America. See Wikipedia article:Few airlines fly between cities having a great circle route over Antarctica. Nonstop flights between South Africa and New Zealand, or between Perth, Australia and certain destinations in South America (including Buenos Aires and São Paulo), would overfly Antarctica, but no airline has scheduled such flights. Flights between Australia and South America and between Australia and South Africa pass near the Antarctic coastline. Depending on the winds, the Qantas flight QF 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg-O. R. Tambo sometimes flies over the Antarctic Circle to latitude 71 degrees as well and allowing views of the icecap.[20] Qantas also flies nonstop between Sydney and Santiago de Chile, the most southerly polar route. Depending on winds, this flight may reach 55 degrees south latitude, but other times 71 degrees, which is enough to cross the polar ice cap.[21][better source needed] The polar route across the remote southern Pacific Ocean between South America and Oceania was pioneered by Aerolineas Argentinas, which began service between Buenos Aires via Rio Gallegos to Auckland in the 1980s with a Boeing 747-200 aircraft. Aerolineas Argentinas later operated to Sydney, but ended its flights to New Zealand and Australia in 2014.
- Eclipses. Despite your kicking and screaming over eclipses, they are proof of a globe earth that rotates around the sun. The Flat Earth model has no intelligent way to explain any eclipse, never mind trying to predict them. Whilst a Flat Earther could make a prediction based on available math, what they fail to realise is the heliocentric model is the only model that logically can demonstrate the prediction. Further, the shadow the earth makes on the moon is what shape? 😉
- Mount Ruapehu is already 900 metres above sea level at the base of the mountain because Ohakune a town at its base is 900 metres above seal level,. You never mention that and add in this 900 metres as if it starts at the bottom of the mountain. This is you being disingenuous or ignorant.
- The globe earth doesn’t require wind due to the spin of the earth and helicopters do not hover and let the earth spin under them and land when their destination arrives because the earth drags the atmosphere with it. Like sitting in a moving car, you can throw a ball up and down in the same fashion as being stationary on Earth. Of course the car could be doing 100km /h it would make no difference because the atmosphere is moving with the inside of the car in like fashion as the atmosphere moving along with the earth.
- Despite infrared cameras, powerful telescopes, and other vision devices, no one has seen New Zealand from Alaska because it is beyond the curve. Most picures that are supposedly beyond the curve could be explained by a number of things like refraction. I am not even sure these caluclations are that accurate. No what would blow the globe earth theory out of the water would be seeing NZ from Alaska or something like that.
- I can see much farther in the distance from a greater height than I can on the ground. Standing on the coast with no obstructions, I can look out to sea with no and view distant landmasses. New Zealand allows for this observation in many places because it is a mountainous island group. But when you go up a few hundred metres, you can see much further out. A Flat Earth wouldn’t make that much difference.
- No matter how hard you try, you cannot see the brightest light in the sky (the sun) at night using a telescope.
Mike this is just 10 points. I could rattle of another 10 if I had the time. You have failed to prove to me the Earth is flat. And you just write off all the globe earth evidence in two words: GIANT CONSPIRACY. Sorry mate, but that aint science, that is what we call opinion without evidence.
Not good enough Mike. Feel free to provide something more compelling.
I’ve set it to where the moon is waxing gibbous. I circled the waxing gibbous moon in red. The question is whether light reflected from the lit side of the earth could reflect to the unlit side of that waxing gibbous moon. In other words, will light follow my red wavy path to hit the back of that moon?
Don’t know. When I do a demo with tree soccer balls, I can see how it can happen. And according the video I posted, bit is rare. I don’t want to trap myself with a waxed gibbon, but I have proven to myself that it can happen. Try it yourself. Three soccer balls with two the same distance away from the third which we will imagine is the earth. As for your 2D waxed gibbon, try to imagine the possibilities in 3D. This is why the soccer ball exercise is good. You don’t have to imagine because you are sealing in 3D. The configuration I set up maybe a waxed gibbon or not. The important thing though is not that a gibbon waxed himself, but that you can easily achieve a configuration where varying amounts of sunlight hit the moon and the earth with some of that light reflecting off the earth to part of the darkened region of the moon and bounce back to your eyes.
A little more info concerning the sun and moon standing still…
Joshua 10:12-13
On the day Yahweh gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to Yahweh in the presence of Israel: “O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still and the moon stopped until the nation took vengeance upon its enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? “So the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down almost a full day.
First, hover your cursor over the words “going down” to see that the Hebrew word means the sun delayed going IN, not DOWN. There is no Hebrew scripture that says the sun “rises”, “sets”, “went down”, etc.
Secondly, the passage mentions the Book of Jasher, and here’s what Jasher says about that event…
Jash 88:63 And when they were smiting, the day was declining toward evening, and Joshua said in the sight of all the people, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon, until the nation shall have revenged itself upon its enemies.
Jash 88:64 And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Joshua, and the sun stood still in the midst of the heavens, and it stood still six and thirty moments, and the moon also stood still and hastened not to go down a whole day.
So Jasher adds a little more information. The Israelites were still chasing down and destroying their enemies when the day was moving towards evening. So it’s clear Joshua commanded the sun to stand still so they would have more daylight to finish the task at hand. And Jasher tells us how long God made the sun stand still in the heaven… but only if someone knows how “six and thirty moments” translates into hours. 🙂
Jasher also has this tidbit about the birth of Moses…
Jash 68:15 And God sent forth at that time a terrible heat in the land of Egypt, which burned up the flesh of man like the sun in his circuit, and it greatly oppressed the Egyptians.
Hmm… “sun in his circuit”? Where have we heard that before?
Psalm 19:1-6
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun. It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and runs its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth.
David also says the sun runs a circuit. And hover your cursor over the word “rises” in that last line. Once again you’ll see that the Hebrew word means “goes forth”, or “springs forth” from one end of the heavens… not RISES. There is no Hebrew scripture that says the sun “rises” or “sets”. There are only English translations that say such things. To the Hebrews and every other culture of the day, the idea of the sun or moon “rising” or “setting” would have been as absurd as us saying the distant clouds “rise” or “set”. Because just as we know that the distant clouds remain the same height above the earth even when they appear from our perspective to be merging with the earth (or even disappearing behind it), the Hebrews knew that the same happens with the sun and moon.
I included the entire first part of Psalm 19 as a message. Even though the sun, moon and stars don’t speak words we can understand, their voice goes out to anyone with ears to hear; and night after night they reveal knowledge to those with eyes to see. Day in and day out we can see them running their God-appointed circuits over our stationary world. Of course this is with the exception of the seven stars who transgressed God’s command and altered their appointed circuits…
Enoch 21:3-6
And I proceeded to where things were chaotic. And I saw there something horrible: I saw neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible.And there I saw seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and burning with fire. Then I said: ‘For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?’ Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: ‘Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? These are of the number of the stars which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated.’
The wise and learned men of the world believe these seven disobedient stars are terrestrial planets in our solar system. Those who recognize that the wise and learned men of the world are fools, and hold scripture as a higher authority than those men, know they are “wandering stars – for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever”. (Jude 1:13) Oh, and take note of Enoch’s reference to our “firmly founded earth”.
There are only two choices, people. You either believe the authority of God’s written word (which aligns perfectly with what we can observe with our own eyes), or you believe the wise and learned men of the world. While deciding which you will choose to believe, consider Paul’s question in 1 Corinthians 1:20…
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
So choose wisely. Choose God over godless men. Either accept that God halted the sun during its regular circuit over our “firmly founded earth” in the days of Joshua, or join T8 in playing mental gymnastics with God’s word – straining your mind to come up with any asinine reason that what the passage clearly says isn’t what the passage actually means.
Lightenup, I’m praying for you on a regular basis. I’m hopeful God will lead you to the exact piece of evidence that makes it all click for you. Because once that first piece clicks, it doesn’t take much effort on your part for the rest to all fall neatly into place.
T8: Mike, I don’t have to jump through your hoops…
Actually you do when you keep repeating the same crap I’ve already refuted, and ignoring those rebuttals. Especially when you call me disingenuous after I clearly addressed your point both here and in the comments of the YouTube video…
Anyone can either look back through the pages of this thread, or read the comments on my YouTube video to see that your point has been thoroughly addressed. You keep bringing up a point – like scripture saying the sun rises and sets – and then I or D4T address your point, and then you don’t respond to our rebuttal post. Then you go and bring up the same crap a week or two later – as if it hasn’t already been addressed. And you always use the same excuse… “Well I don’t have time to read every post”. Uh… that’s not our problem, is it? If you make a point, then also make it a point to LOOK FOR THE ANSWER TO IT! IMO, only an idiot would do otherwise. And then on top of bringing it up yet another time, you even have the audacity to claim that we’ve never addressed it…
T8: Mount Ruapehu is already 900 metres above sea level at the base of the mountain because Ohakune a town at its base is 900 metres above seal level,. You never mention that and add in this 900 metres as if it starts at the bottom of the mountain. This is you being disingenuous or ignorant.
… AND call ME disingenuous or ignorant for NOT addressing it?
So after your apology, you need to jump through this hoop…
T8, did I address your Ruapehu point? Did YOU answer my rebuttal? Since not, do so now. The question is: Even eliminating 2000 feet for the plateau, HALF of the mountain in your photo should still be missing. DOES IT APPEAR TO YOU THAT HALF OF RUAPEHU IS MISSING IN YOUR PHOTO? YES OR NO?
Here’s another example…
T8: The boat that was brought back from a distance further than the horizon was false. It was on the near side of the horizon.
T8, HOW FAR AWAY MUST A BOAT BE BEFORE IT’S ON “THE FAR SIDE” OF THE HORIZON?
So you get busy actually ADDRESSING my rebuttal posts, and we’ll go from there. Because I can go through your list of 10 and show your errors in every one of them without even thinking. (I’ve actually already done it on this thread!) But like I said before, there ain’t no use in talking when there’s nobody listening. So prove to us that you are actually LISTENING by actually RESPONDING to my rebuttals – and then I’ll tear down every one of your other “proofs” one by one (again).
Otherwise, bugger off. I’ve got more important things to do.
Mike: “A little more info concerning the sun and moon standing still…”
A well written post! I wonder how many believers actually know what the biblical text says! Then there is the step of faith to actually believe it.
Yes you are right Mike, 600m is closer to the real altitude. However, in other places I put 600m as well, but it must have slipped my mind since. Now that I think about it, I remember thinking with Ruapehu being 2,797 m, that I mentally put it down to 2000m of actual mountain (yes slightly higher) to make the calculations easy. But my point stands because while I discussed this a few times in this forum, then you made the video later where you hid this fact or perhaps you never read my posts explaining this fact. And yes you may have replied to me in your Youtube channel, but I do not remember reading that reply so I either did and forgot about it or never read it at all. So while you may have addressed it since, you certainly had not addressed it in any way in the video which was after the fact, and I thought that was disingenuous.
You keep bringing up a point – like scripture saying the sun rises and sets
The sun going down is one of the meanings Mike and it is the one that is repeated in scripture and it is the wording we use even today. Further, the sun stood still also can mean it stopped doing what it does. What does the sun do? From our perspective it moves and it shines. So when it stops, it could mean either. Now don’t get me wrong please. I am not saying that it definitely means it stopped shining as opposed to stop moving. No, I am not saying that. All I am doing is keeping the options open. As you should be aware, I clearly believe that God can intervene in creation in the same way a programmer can intervene in his virtual world. Our reality may seem big and impossible to change, but God is higher than his own creation and beyond time, and we see Math throughout creation which suggests to me our real world is the programmers virtual world. Thus, he can pause, edit, delete, create, and destroy his own creation or parts of it whenever he wants. So if he wanted the sun to be still, he could have somehow paused the movement of Earth and sustained it during that time and there you have it. Equally, he could have played around with time and gave it twice the value so to speak. However or whatever, I am not denying that God did or could pause his creation so probably best to let that one rest Mike. Your accusation that I do not believe the scripture is fallacious.
Your first point is a good one in your Youtube rebuttal. If you think that is the bottom of the mountain, then where is Ohakune? Yes, that town should be in the photo because it lies directly below the lower flanks of the mountain in view.
So now we have roughly 2000 metres of mountain to deal with and given that you cannot see Ohakune, it is as I have said before, highly likely the bottom part of the mountain comprises of landscape on my side of the horizon. We can already see that the sea is exaggerated in its curve and this is due to the huge amount of zoom needed to get the picture. I mentioned a few times before that the space between Ruapehu and Paekakariki has been squeezed / pushed together, thus making it very hard to determine what is the actual mountain and what is land in the foreground. Further, as I have said before, I am not even sure these earth curve calculators are that correct for longer distances. I wouldn’t go and put all my faith in them. I posted a video where these calculations were debunked, but I don’t know if that debunking was true or not because I do not dedicate the same kind of time to this subject that you do.
So I have proposed a number of times, that blending in of landscape on my side of the horizon coupled with atmospheric refraction magnifying and possibly bending the light coming from the mountain, could result in the photo I took. Of course you will just say that this is extremely unlikely, but may I remind you that to see the mountain is extremely unlikely, thus an extremely unlikely event took place. And think about this fact, if the Earth was flat, then why can you not see that mountain from that vantage point 99,99% of the time? You would say that the air was clear that day? But the air is clear a lot of days here. It seems to be that regardless of your belief, that a series of circumstances came together to allow this mountain to be seen. This is true from a globe earth or flat earth perspective. So no need to pretend that my explanation is unlikely and foolish.
If you think about it, you say my photo disproves a globe earth, but it disproves a flat earth because you cannot see it except on very rare occasions. What is harder to accept, that the earth is flat and the mountain too far away to see or that the mountain cannot be seen because of the curve? If you say because the earth is flat and too far to behold, then you have explaining to do on how I managed to get a photo of something that you cannot photograph on a flat earth?
Please answer that last question. How if the Earth was flat, did I get a photo of a mountain that is too far to see with the naked eye or camera except on a very rare occasion? I’ve given you a possibility of this rare occasion on a globe earth, now your turn
Mike, can I remind you of the fact that I am not here to be right, to win arguments, and to prove I am better than everyone else. I am here to discover truth. Thus, when I say that I do not believe your Flat Earth arguments, that is not me being carnal and trying to win at all costs, no, it is me telling you the truth. I have listened to your arguments and you have raised some good questions, but while I may not have all the answers right away, in time, the answers have come and I have found your arguments wanting. And I point out disingenuous arguments only because it shows me that the person who makes them is not so interested in the truth as being right in their own mind. Of course, I have a problem with this.
If I say that these 10 arguments show me your wrong, it is because that is what I truly think. If the world was a flat disk and the evidence pointed that way, despite being laughed at, I would believe it or at least say that this is contender for the truth. But I have not found this to be the case. There are lots of things I believe that are not in the majority, so I am not one to tow the line. For example, I believe:
- God is invisible
- God is not a Trinity
- Jesus is not God
- God called Trump to be president
- The Ottoman Empire / Islamic Empire is the seventh head and the seventh and eighth king.
- Islam is invading Europe with the belief that Europe will become part of the future caliphate
- Global Warming from CO2 is largely a hoax in that climate change has always happened. I think cutting trees down is a bigger problem as they absorb sunlight and it is always cooler in a forest.
Of course as always, I am open to changing my mind on any point because what matters to me is not that I am right, but that I am learning everyday and becoming without blemish. It seems silly to me to let pride defend an argument at all costs, even at the expense of the truth. No, for me, in these discussions, a love for the truth is paramount.
Rockets arching? lol. Often rockets are the payload and once the satellite or spaceship is in space, then the rockets come back down to earth. This is not going to convince people that the earth is flat.
I could also say rockets have been exploding since the 50s.
But I can also say that rockets have been going into space (beyond the disk) since the 50s.
My guess is leave the Earth where it is (or thereabouts) and draw an imaginary perpendicular line running from the line created by the light dark border and toward the centre of the circumference in the lit up area and place the sun there at some distance. Imagine the sun is the about the same size and obviously, the Earth (vantage point) being huge in fact much bigger than the moon. Then you will understand that there is sufficient earth area to reflect light back to the dark side of the moon. Can you admit this possibility?
Concordance: “Stood Still”
Mike, you made me pull out the big guns. Three concordances and they are heavy. I use to be able to do this from the Web. I can’t see an online Concordance anymore. Anyone know where there is one? Oh well, manual typing here we come and the books get a dusting.
Joshua 10:13: “So the sun stood still,”
5975
amad – a prim root to stand
used literally and figuratively
appoint, arise, cease, confirm, continue, dwell, be employed, endure, establish, leave, make, ordain, be over, present, raise up., remain, repair, raise up, set forth, stand…I can see most meanings look like they could fit the sun standing still, but there is also cease and leave which could support the eclipse hypothesis.
Concordance: “Going Down”
Ephesians 4:26 – “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry,
1931
epiduo from 1909 & 1416 to set fully as the sun
Go DownI can see here in the New Testament that the sun set or going down of the sun is accurate. Except you do not believe the sun goes down. But I believe it, therefore it is I who believes and you who disbelieves right?
The sun goes down, yet neither flat or globe earth say the sun actually goes down from a universal perspective. Obviously it is an appearance / perspective thing depending on your loaction. When I say the sun will go down in 5 minutes, I do not mean that the world is flat and the sun will go past the horizon and under the disk. No, what I mean if you want a scientific explanation is the earth spin will make the sun go below the horizon from my perspective but not your perspective at the same moment. Whilst you deny perspective and how location changes that perspective, you have to admit that even the Flat Earth theory uses perspective in this way. That is, the sun sets in New Zealand but not in Arizona because we both have different perspectives given our differing location.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
