- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8: Here is the curve… And we didn’t have to go to space.
You’ve got too many things on your plate right now for me to deal with that faked Lake Pontchartrain photo right now. Just know that the way it was faked is known, and other people have gone to the same location and did the photo normally to show there isn’t any such curve. In fact, just Google “Lake Pontchartrain” and you’ll see hundreds of photos of it from all different angles – none of which show the preposterous amount of curve in Soundly’s photo. Dude, just think it out first next time. If we really could see curvature like that at Lake Pontchartrain, we’d be able to see it all over the place. In other words, there wouldn’t have ever been any doubt that the earth was a ball – as far back as the days of Adam – because EVERYONE would be able to clearly see the curve all the time. 🙂
Newton’s theory of gravity was correct, it just wasn’t complete. The math worked most of the time, but in some circumstances it came out with a wrong result. Einstein added in another factor that solved that.
Newton’s theory is still used today Mike. If it didn’t work, then many industries wouldn’t trust it.
Newton was a genius and I love the fact that he studied scripture more than he did science. He even concluded that the Trinity Doctrine was not taught in the Bible.
Mike, I would be willing to bet that 5hese photos you speak of didn’t use as much zoom lense as the pic I posted. Of course the photo could be fake, but even it was, it wouldn’t change the fact that the earth is a globe.
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?
Simple to answer. Imagine the original light travelling in its default straight line. Now skew it 3ver so slightly by a couple of degrees or so by the atmosphere lense. After 200 km, the gap can be quite big right?
Draw a circle with 360 lines each representing the degrees in a circle. Look at the centre and how the lines start as indistinguishable, yet intersect the circumference in very different spots.
Your idea that light is never affected by water or moisture is silly because you have to admit that glass can change light a lot and yet water is like that except more profound because it moves.
Have you ever seen a fish tank and observed the other side of the room through the water. It doesn’t look exactly like the other side of the room as seen without the fish tank right? It’s still recognisable, but things can look bigger or the angles are different.
Its a basic idea that doesn’t require much testing because we see such effects everyday, especially if you wear glasses.
just like the moon that we see set twice in one hour, right?
Think for a minute. Does a smooth lense do that? No. If you looked through a square glass you might see something twice and sort of jump in between, but not a smooth lense. When I look out a window, to some degree what you see is being distorted by the glass. I usually don’t see the same person move past a window. The atmosphere in case you were not aware is not just at the horizon.
In other words, there wouldn’t have ever been any doubt that the earth was a ball – as far back as the days of Adam – because EVERYONE would be able to clearly see the curve all the time. 🙂
You have this weird expectation that ancient man knew everything. But scripture says that knowledge will increase in the last days. And perspective is everything. While humans say this and that is true, what God knows and says is actually true. Let God be true and every man a liar and couple that with knowledge shall increase and that man has a flat world 3D experience all the while not seeing angels, portals, and the spiritual dimension.
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.
Stars twinkle because of turbulence in the atmosphere of the Earth. As the atmosphere churns, the light from the star is refracted in different directions. This causes the star’s image to change slightly in brightness and position, hence “twinkle.” This is one of the reasons the Hubble telescope is so successful: in space, there is no atmosphere to make the stars twinkle, allowing a much better image to be obtained.
Planets do not twinkle the way stars do. In fact, this is a good way of figuring out if a particular object you see in the sky is a planet or a star. The reason is that stars are so far away that they are essentially points of light on the sky, while planets actually have finite size. The size of a planet on the sky in a sense “averages out” the turbulent effects of the atmosphere, presenting a relatively stable image to the eye.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/81-the-universe/stars-and-star-clusters/stargazing/382-why-do-stars-twinkle-beginnerThe 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”.
Mike, have you ever been on a plane? It uses the principles of gravity to fly while a hot air balloon uses buoyancy. While planes still crash from time to time, I wouldn’t fly with FE Airways because they would abandon Gravity and I don’t think I would reach my destination. Albert Einstein said this:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong.”Even after all those years, scientists are still performing tests to see if there are flaws in Einstein’s Theories of General and Special Relativity. Neither has been shown to be wrong, so they are still accepted and highly respected scientific theories.
The same is true for new explanations of how and why things work. After a great deal of testing, and with enough solid evidence, often with much modification as more evidence is gathered, a new explanation may eventually be accepted for the exalted title of Theory.
https://thehappyscientist.com/content/when-does-theory-become-lawT8, which is your favorite verse that teaches a globe?
You guys are the ones saying that we should believe the Bible over Science. What I have been saying all along is science can agree with the Bible or at least not contradict it. Planet Earth as a globe that orbits the Sun is not in conflict with any bible verse. So you cannot use the Bible as your justification and you cannot pretend to be offended at our supposed lack of faith in scripture because we believe the Earth is a globe.
T8, which is your favorite verse that teaches a globe?
What is your favourite verse that teaches about the existence of the Australian continent?
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.
Yes it is simple and if it includes all the facts, then he must be right. But the math shows otherwise. So you need to look at the math, understand it, and then see what Mike is missing out.
Tell us something you personally know about light, and how it behaves. Does it actually move from one place to another? How do you know? Does it move at a constant speed as we’ve been told? (Please answer that last one directly.)
Light is interesting. It is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It has both a wave like and particle properties as demonstrated by The Double Slit Experiment which I find way more fascinating than debating something as mundane as the Flat Earth. When you shoot protons, electrons, and even larger quantum sized objects through a plate with two slits in it, it makes an interference pattern on the back wall like water does unlike say ball bearings being shot from a canon. But when you measure or observe this, the light creates the same pattern as the double slit plate, like ball bearings being shot from a canon. This is really weird and fascinating. The experiment has been repeated hundreds if not thousands of times in different ways and the result is always the same. It defies logic or the logic that we understand at macro level.
The Speed of Light is around 186,000 mps, but no one knows for sure its exact speed. And no one knows why light is the speed it is. If you figure that out, there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you. That said, the Speed of Light appears to be a constant. In other words it has a maximum velocity and nothing can exceed it it seems. If you traveled at the speed of light and shone a torch out in front of you, it wouldn’t be twice the speed of light but still the speed of light.
I guess we know that God is light and he is constant and nothing can supersede him, so I guess physical light is like him in that respect.
Mike, here is my post with the math.
https://heavennet.net/forums/topic/flat-earth/page/128/#post-839443
You haven’t answered it. Show me what part of the equation is wrong or irrelevant.
All you have done is stick to what you know, but I have given you some math that supposedly adds up.
Analyse the math and it might show you what you are missing.
Oh boy, talk about not listening. T8, you’re not listening which is important unless you just want to post the same thing over and over and over.
I’m sorry but I’m not as patient as Mike. You’ll have to just walk away thinking you’ve made a valid point without even understanding the counter point to your position. Now go and celebrate. The rest of us who read this will know that you didn’t even understand (or didn’t want to understand) the real answer. It has been explained more than several times for you and I’m not about to waste any more time on someone who is unwilling to think about an argument before taking a position on it.
Diggy, I understand Mike’s point here, it is simple and I have said this already. Now I am asking you if you can understand the math I have posted. If you cannot, then fine. Where is the error in the math is my question.
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)
- Length of Earth days: 86,400 seconds
- One moon revolution around the earth: 2,400,000 seconds
- Distance between Earth and moon: 225,000 miles
- Moon’s orbital distance: 1.4 million miles
- Moon travelling at 2000 miles per hour
- Earth is spinning at 1000 miles per hour at the equator, but less in North America.
Mike & Dig, is there anything here in the calculations that you disagree with? If so, what exactly?
If you cannot refute the math, then it is a good answer to your question and we can move on from here.
Mike, all things with mass have gravitational influence even you do. But in your case it is so miniscule compared to earth itself that it matters not. It’s like thinking that the light eminating from your phone screen will have an impact against a spotlight from a lighthouse, but much worse than that.
T8, do you believe that if the moon is orbiting the earth at twice the speed of the rotation of the earth that it would be enough for the moon to cast a shadow on the earth from west to east? Honest question, please answer. If you don’t believe this then why are you pressing the issue?
The other question is why doesn’t it do that all the time? Does the moon suddeny speed up to 3 times the speed on special occasions?
So, can you answer why the shadow of the moon doesn’t always go from west to east?
On a 2D model graphic what Mike says makes sense on the outset, but once again do I need to remind you guys that a 2D graphic is not reality, but is used to get a point across at the cost of not representing true distance, scale, and shape.
There is a lot more at play here as the Earth is orbiting the Sun and with the moon locked to the Earth, then one would assume the Moon is travelling very fast indeed. Think of how fast a waterskier is going in comparison to a turning boat.
Also think of a light source passing by an object. Does the shadow move in a uniform manner? I have seen a shadow seriously speed up on approach and when it leaves, with the middle moving slower. Does the shadow remain the same speed the whole time. Does the shadow always follow the speed of the moving object? What happens when a shadow encounters a hill? It slows right? What about when it goes down the hill? It speeds up right? Now think about the shape of the Earth. It’s like that hill. A sloping upward toward the horizon and slope downward thereafter. Of course this is also in relation to the light source.
Regardless of whether you cannot picture it, I have given you the math right?
Okay, I found a page on space.com that might answer this for you. I will quote it below.
The other thing to consider is that the moon’s shadow is being projected not onto a flat surface, but onto a sphere (Earth). Near the middle of the totality path, the shadow is moving at its slowest along the surface of the planet. But at the very beginning of the totality path, and at the very end, the shadow is striking Earth at a very oblique angle; at these points, the shape of the shadow on Earth resembles an extremely elongated oval, or even a cigar.
In fact, at the moment that the shadow is just moving onto (or off of) the Earth’s surface, it is traveling at infinite speed, because at these points the axis of the lunar shadow cone is tangent to the globe of the Earth. When the shadow begins to move onto the Earth’s surface (at local sunrise), its speed begins to slow as it travels, in essence, “uphill,” over the curve of the Earth. Later, as the shadow begins to move toward the end of its path (at local sunset), its ground speed increases as it moves “downhill” along the curve of the Earth, ultimately sliding completely off the planet’s surface.
On March 8, 2016, I was one of 163 lucky passengers on board an Alaska Airlines 737-900 jet, which intercepted the moon’s umbra over the Pacific Ocean en route from Anchorage to Honolulu. When the shadow enveloped our aircraft, we were 700 miles (1,130 km) north of Honolulu and very close to the sunset point of the eclipse path.
In fact, the shadow was already beginning to slide off the Earth’s surface as totality ended for us. At that moment, the shadow was moving at a speed of about 8,000 mph (12,900 km/h). [Incredible Solar Eclipse View Shot During Alaska Airlines Flight (Video)]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
