- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 3 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Dig, Mike ignored this one, so I appeal to you for an answer.
Do you think it is scientifically sound to extend sun rays back toward the source at the angles presented to us and arrive at the suns’ altitude?
It disproves your “sun and moon lift up a half a degree” refraction claim.
Do you think it is possible that you are not seeing the full picture?
You know a guilty person points the finger toward someone else in order to detract attention from himself.
Is this why you try to disprove a half degree refraction in the heliocentric model rather than explain the elephant in the room which is how do eclipses work in the Flat Earth model?
Seriously, do you think people do not notice that? The Flat Earth is 360 degrees off compared with what you think is a mere 0.5 degree .
How about removing the log before trying to reconcile the speck? Lol.
Explain that with the Flat Earth model. Oh yeah, you don’t have a model.
Funny how the Globe Earth model explains everything.
Just saying.
I have looked at his before and apparently other factors are more likely to be influencing the direction. But what if everything was perfectly still with no influence other than the planet itself?
Ed: No explanation = wrong model
Surely you can’t be serious… can you?
Hi Mike,
Ok, your right. I just said that for impact.
But w/o an explanation of the longer sun-cycle in
the South, I cannot take the flat earth model seriouslySorry
Flat Earthers like to follow the angles of sun rays in order to locate the position of the sun and according to that logic, the sun is not 93 million miles away but much much closer.
…but here is a pic that shows how fickle following these lines really is. As you can see, moisture does magic things to light that would otherwise travel in straight lines.diver
Hi T8,
Thank you T8, that photo does constitute as evidence
____________
God bless
Ed JHi Mike,
Here is a piece of evidence for the flat earth model…
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.
Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven,
and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto
the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.” (Josh 10:13-14)How did God feed 5000 people from a few loaves and fishes? The answer is God can do the miraculous because he is God. But sure, often the miraculous has a logical explanation so I will have a go with a few points that obviously I’m not saying are true, but just possibilities. And yes I am sure we could shoot heaps of holes in some of these, but I haven’t got time to take each to the nth degree. So please Mike, spare me the thesis on each. I don’t really care about these points.
- Perhaps the verse has been mistranslated.
- Polar Shift might explain it. North became South and vice versa. As the sun was about to set it rose again due to complete polar shift. I was close to seeing this (without polar shift) when I was in Norway. The sun set around 4am and then rose I think at 6am. Had I been there earlier or later, (I cannot remember now), it would have been possible to see the sun set then rise again without it disappearing – the Midnight Sun. God could have used Polar Shift perhaps not even full polar shift. Polar Shift could also explain why mammoths have been found preserved in ice with temperate to subtropical plants still in their stomachs. A sudden change of climate appears to have taken place that was quick and cold enough to stop the flesh of beasts to rot away.
- Maybe just as the sun went to the other side of the world, a burning celestial object like a star or burning mountain fell from Heaven and lit up the night sky creating the extra light needed near the end of the day.
- Maybe God hacked the Matrix. I use to build game levels as a hobby for a popular PC game back in the 90s. I could then boot the game up, play it, then stop it, make a hack, and play it again with the new hacks. If I can do this in a virtual world, then surely an eternal God can do much greater in the real world.
- Perhaps God just literally slowed everything down for a period and negated any catastrophic consequence of doing this. After all, he is the lawgiver and creator so the law is his servant and he is not subject to the work of his own hands. It goes without saying that if he can create the sun, then he has the power to move it too or slow the earth. But how catastrophic would slowing the earth spin be? I have no idea. All I can tell you withour research is a car travelling at 100 km/h can be stopped comfortably in a few seconds without feeling the drop in speed too much. Something travelling at 1,600 km/h could probably stop comfortably for passengers in a few minutes.
- Maybe the Earth is flat, but there is too much evidence against this.
A good video on Antarctica
While not a debunk of the Flat Earth it does that anyway.
It also explains the geopolitical aspects of this continent which seems poorly understood in this discussion.
Here’s a 3 minute vid about NZ and Antarctica I just watched today. Check out how this new frontier was described by Encyclopedia Americana before the 1958 “no one can go there” treaty…
I will watch it, but NZers go there every year. Includes scientists, politicians, even tourists.
One person is the dad of one of my friends. He claims to have been to the South Pole. He is a scientist.
T8: Maybe the Earth is flat, but there is too much evidence against this.
But which of that evidence can you and I go out and verify for ourselves? I’ve been saying this for a long time, but ALL of the “evidence” of a spinning ball comes down to a mathematical concept, and pictures from space that a) are very easy to fake, b) are mostly admittedly CGI composites, and c) cannot be verified as authentic by normal people like you and I.
And about that mathematical concept… this is from the “All About Science” website (not flat earthers). https://www.allaboutscience.org/big-bang-theory.htm
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it’s just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
George Ellis is one of the top 10 astrophysicists in the world, and even co-authored a book with Stephen Hawking (the guy you think can type with a cheek muscle as fast as you and I can talk 😉). So how does the FACT that nobody in the world could disprove his geocentric (earth centered) universe based on actual scientific evidence strike you? Don’t we have probes and satellites all over in space? Didn’t we send one to the sun… and another all the way to Pluto? What does it mean that a probe at Pluto can’t confirm for us that the earth is moving around the sun? Think it out, T8. With all these probes and other craft all over in outer space, why are we getting nothing but CGI? Heck, we can’t even see a Space X rocket go all the way to the ISS. Instead they give us a crappy view from a camera idiotically mounted behind a booster rocket – which they cut off after a certain time and switch to a cartoon animation of what’s currently happening during the flight. Why? They could put 20 tiny 8K cameras all over those rockets – with views in every direction – and keep them running non-stop from earth all the way to the ISS. But no… instead they launch a Tesla car to Mars with cameras that stop working after only a few hours. And you think this makes sense. You think this is how people really SHOULD spend trillions of taxpayer dollars. “Yeah, let’s send a car to Mars but make sure the cameras only last a couple hours, because what’s really out there to see anyway?”
Really? People have YouTube channels dedicated to live streaming fish swimming around in an aquarium. There are dozens that do nothing but live stream the sun, moon, and stars from earth. There are even ones that live stream a fireplace. But no… nobody would be interested in seeing footage of a car getting farther and farther from earth and closer and closer to Mars. Nobody would want to see live footage of the moon orbiting the earth as the earth orbits the sun. Goodness gracious… there would be over a million viewers of that feed every second of every day. They could have an ad scrolling at the bottom and make billions!
Do you understand how it WOULD BE done if it could indeed BE done at all? It’s like sending Jacques Cousteau to the depths of the ocean, but only sending 5 minutes of film with him. Who in their right mind would do things that way?
T8: I will watch it, but NZers go there every year. Includes scientists, politicians, even tourists.
One person is the dad of one of my friends. He claims to have been to the South Pole. He is a scientist.
Which of them can verify it is a continent? Which of them is allowed free access to the entire land mass to explore as they wish – like with any national park? And more importantly, can you and I go there to explore anywhere we want whenever we want? If not, WHY not? What would be YOUR reason if you ran the world?
“Okay people, you can go anywhere in the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone Park. You can explore anywhere you want in the great Outback territory. You can hike across the Alaskan wilderness to your heart’s content. But the only place you can’t fly over, explore freely, or even come close to is Antarctica because…” (You fill in the rest.)
No single government controls Antarctica, so visitors do not need visas to go there. But with the ratification of the Antarctic Treaty’s Protocol on Environmental Protection in 1998, all visitors who are citizens of countries that are signatories of the Antarctic Treaty must have a permit to visit Antarctica.
To verify it is a continent for yourself, you only need to touch foot there and it is then either an island or if large enough, a continent. As for moving about freely, well you have no idea how treacherous that place is. The coldest windiest driest place on Earth. In short, if you are not super prepared, you will die. Given that and it’s pristine landscapes, it was a sensible move to turn it into a wilderness place or reserve.
That said, the treaty doesn’t mean that NZ disowns its section, it just means of those countries that have a stake in the frozen continent, that there will be no industry there like oil drilling etc. An easy decision to make because it is so damn inhospitable anyway, so not even worth the effort.
Antarctica is not the only place in the New Zealand realm that requires a permit. The Kermadec Islands also require permission and only one island is able to be visited with a permit. Further there are plans to turn it into the world’s largest marine reserve. Guess what, the Kermadecs lie in the subtropical zone of the Southern Hemisphere and that place has nothing to do with any supposed edge of the world and beginning of dome phenomena, yet it too is restricted. The restrictions for Antarctica are not that unusual and are inline with any national park or protected environment. Besides preserving Antarctica and keeping away industries that could exploit the landscape for natural resources it is also extremely dangerous to visit there, so probably a good thing that you cannot just rock up there in a kayak.
I am sure if you were a NZ citizen and were a respected scientist and wanted to visit Antarctica on a mission to increase the knowledge of Antarctica, you could get a permit. If that rules you out, then take a plane flight over the continent from Melbourne in Australia or go on a cruise to there. Once you land, just run toward the centre and keep going. You will die, but at least you will die with the knowledge that it was too big to get to the end and with the knowledge that there was no dome or edge in part you visited.
10 Rules for Traveling in Antarctica
If you visit as a tourist, here are 10 rules you need to adhere to.
If however your intention is to find the dome, then go for it. As you will see in the rules, there are basically no rescues.
All the best for your trip.
A Trip to the South Pole for FLAT EARTH Believers
Mike, Why not make it your life’s mission right now to reach the South Pole as it seems more possible now than ever. Then you can get back to doing stuff for the Kingdom of God after that. Better that than wasting the rest of your life arguing about the Flat Earth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
