- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Hey T8, I’m still waiting for answers to my post with the sun, moon and earth artwork I did, and my latest one concerning Mt. Ruapehu. I’ve asked some simple questions in both of those posts, but haven’t heard any response from you yet.
I wasn’t aware such a thing existed. Please enlighten me.
I have posted many in this topic such as the laser over the lake to large boats going over the curve and bottom disappearing first. I will post more videos as you may have missed them.
Here is another debunk video that probably knocks a couple of points you may be holding onto. I know you posted about the moon and earth video that makes an appearance in this video.
A lesson in Newton’s first law
What was the lesson?
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Remember the example of travelling in a car and throwing a ball in the air. While you may be travelling say 100km/h the ball acts as if you were on the surface of the earth. In other words, speed does not make water in lakes go to one side, but can be dead still no matter how fast the Earth is travelling around the sun and no matter how fast the sun travels around the Milky Way. It makes no difference. Only when there is acceleration or deceleration will things start to move. That is, if you accelerate in a car and throw the ball in the air, then you may not catch it because it is not simply going up and down like it was when you were travelling at an even 100km/h.
Conclusion: The speed of the earth doesn’t matter. You won’t feel wind because the earth spins and helicopters will not be able to just hover and wait for their destination to arrive. From my point of view, the argument that we cannot notice the Earth moving in this sense as proving a Flat Earth is now debunked. Newton debunked that idea a long time ago and it can easily be demonstrated by taking a drive in your car.
More Flat Earth gibberish giving the Bible a bad name
And this guy uses the Bible to debunk your particular theory of the Flat Earth Mike.
Well done FErs. Many knocking on the door of Heaven because of your witness.
T8: The speed of the earth doesn’t matter.
What if the earth spon at 6,000,000 mph? Would that make a difference?
Hmm… still no PRO flat earth videos you’d like to present and discuss, huh? You mentioned Newton’s 1st Law – which I’ve already told you is destroyed by light slowing down in water, but then picking right back up to it’s “constant” speed upon exiting the water. What force acted upon that light to speed it back up? You also mentioned the ball in the car thing again. T8, is our atmosphere encased within a hard, solid container – like the air in the car? What would happen if you took the roof off that same car and did the same experiment? You’re trying to compare apples to oranges here, and you can’t even see it.
Here’s a simple question that you won’t answer (just like you don’t answer the other ones): At what point does our “velcroed” atmosphere cease being velcroed to the earth, and begin to flow freely?
I have another dozen questions concerning this very “ball in the car” point you’re attempting to make. I’d like to go through them all, but let’s just see if you can address my first point first.
In the meantime, I’m waiting for your answer to my artwork post, and your answer to my last post about Ruapehu. If you continue to post random “flat earth debunked” videos instead of directly addressing the things we’re already discussing, I’ll just leave you alone again. I’ve got videos to make anyway, and you’re taking up my time just to play games instead of having an honest adult discussion. Answer the artwork post from last page.
What if the earth spon at 6,000,000 mph? Would that make a difference?
Probably not as it would drag the atmosphere with it, it would be relatively the same. But of course other effects could take place such as days and nights being very quick, less fuel for rockets to escape the atmosphere as the extra speed would provide a faster lift off speed. The equator might bulge more. Wind would be deflected further eastward and cyclones would spin faster and probably be more devastating.Kinda guessing with most of these though.
What if the earth spon at 6,000,000 mph? Would that make a difference?
Probably not as it would drag the atmosphere with it, it would be relatively the same. But of course other effects could take place such as days and nights being very quick, less fuel for rockets to escape the atmosphere as the extra speed would provide a faster lift off speed. The equator might bulge more. Wind would be deflected further eastward and cyclones would spin faster and probably be more devastating.Kinda guessing with most of these though.
Drag the atmosphere with it? How? How does it do that now since as Mike implied it is not really “velcrod” to the earth?
His car without a roof illustrates that simple fact perfectly!
However, you seem to have justified our impossible situation and doubled down on it. In fact you just didn’t double down you 600,000 times down on it! But it all makes perfect sense to you somehow.
So your saying that the atmosphere is like a car without a roof so that means that throwing a ball in the air in a moving car cannot be compared to throwing a ball up in a spinning Earth that is travelling around the sun. This argument is weak.
Try doing this with a car that has an open roof a hundred miles up or even 20 feet tall, you could probably throw the ball in the air and catch it.
As a reminder, here is why the atmosphere is not sucked into the vacuum of space.
Also take note that we can observe other planets that have an atmosphere.
This is another argument debunked in my view.
You video appeals to gravity holding gas molecules to the earth. Of course gravity is a theory that has never been verified – and has actually been refuted by light gases such as helium. And consider that air pressure at sea level is about 15 psi. So not only is gravity attracting gas molecules to earth, but it is attracting them with such force that they don’t just stack up one on the other, but squish each other down to the tune of 15 pounds of pressure per square inch. Does that really make sense to you, T8? Imagine the effort it takes you to inflate your bike tire to 15 psi. Imagine how stiff and hard that tire is at only 15 psi. Then imagine poking a hole in that tire. What would happen to the pressure inside it?
It’s one thing to imagine that some magical force can attract masses to each other. It is quite another thing to imagine that this force can attract them with such force that they squish so tightly together they cause a uniform pressure of 15 psi. Were you aware that gravity is said to be the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature? Were you aware that regular everyday gas pressure is much more powerful than gravity?
So while we can make a theoretical argument that a hypothetical force called gravity can attract gas molecules to the earth – and even allow them to pile up in layers one upon the other – the minute your theory says these layers of gas molecules must squish each other together to form even .0000001 psi of pressure, it becomes an absurd and impossible theory. Because the pressure it takes to squish two gas molecules together is much larger than the weaker force of gravity could apply.
Think of you trying to get two magnets to touch each other north pole to north pole. Think of the strength it takes your hands to force them to touch when they are repelling each other. Now imagine that you must force them to touch using two feathers instead of your two hands. The repelling force of the magnets is much more powerful than the pushing force of flimsy feathers, and you’d never be successful in making the magnets touch each other. It is the same with gas pressure vs gravity. The repelling force of the gas pressure far outweighs the attracting force of gravity. In the heliocentric model, there can be no such thing as air pressure at all.
Not all that is labelled science turns out to be true because it is full of theories and competing theories, but it can and does lead to truth.
Gravity is called a law and yes I understand it is the weakest of the forces. An apple hits the ground as gravity forces it toward the direction of earth’s centre, but its stop when it hits the ground because of electromagnetism (if I remember correctly), so that force is far superior to gravity.
But laws imply a law maker and I believe that is how God created the cosmos. At its heart, we see mathematical code and laws in the universe. In fact so precise are they that it declares the existence of God.
It is said no man studied the Bible and wrote commentary on it more than the man who discovered the Law of gravity. And I know that God delights in revealing truth to those who seek. Sir Isaac Newton was a great man. I cannot wait to meet him.
If science in its purest motive is the discovery of truth about the physical world, then it will point to God and indeed for the discerning it has discovered God.
As for your idea about our atmosphere being sucked out into the vacuum of space, you think this because of Hollywood and yes it may appear that way, but the video I posted describes what is really happening.
Now imagine a hot day in the Sahara and a cold day on Antractica. How come the temperature doesn’t interact and we get a warm day in both areas? Of course as you know there is a huge distance between the two and slow variation in between. Same with our atmosphere. It thins out slowly till the edge where the thinnest part of our atmosphere meets the vacuum. That is what you need to test. You speak like it is the atmosphere we exist in that meets space.
God is not a man Mike, so why would a Spirit build a snow globe earth and sit it on his mantlepiece? Maybe a giant man would do that if he could. The reality is God’s eternal nature can clearly be seen in the universe we have come to understand, which by the way is still only fraction of what is out there.
He is the great law giver and creator of all. His works are beyond our full understanding. He created the heavens Mike. Your model does not adequately describe the heavens. You just see a heaven and a not very spectacular one at that. Your science is fixed to a time before knowledge increased.
Here’s a simple question that you won’t answer (just like you don’t answer the other ones): At what point does our “velcroed” atmosphere cease being velcroed to the earth, and begin to flow freely?
Do your own homework. Google it because that’s all I will do. I charge $65.00 per hour for doing other people’s homework.
It doesn’t take a lot of home work to figure out that distance does not diminish the effects of a vacuum. Between pressure and vacuum there is no “neutral zone”! Try it sometime.
LOL! I’ll gladly pay him the $65 if he can produce the actual, one and only answer to the question I asked. 😀 (Good luck with that, T8!)
T8, what about my eclipse drawing? Do you agree that – according to your belief – the sun, earth and moon have to be directly in line (syzygy) for a lunar eclipse to occur?
T8, what about my last Ruapehu point? If the bottom 50% is refracting up from behind the curve, why would the upper 50% – which is already visible above the curve – also refract up into the sky and rest perfectly on top of the bottom 50% that refracted up from behind the curve?
It doesn’t take a lot of home work to figure out that distance does not diminish the effects of a vacuum. Between pressure and vacuum there is no “neutral zone”! Try it sometime.
You owe me $65.00 because I needed to correct you. Note that the atmosphere thins out the higher you go. I have tested this myself. I lived in a city that was close to 3000 metres high and it is hard to breathe up there. Explain that on a flat earth in a dome Einstein. Lol.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
