- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Regarding my photo, I have asked my Facebook friends in explaining it. While most comments were about skiing on the mountain or just complimenting the photo, one guy who I knew would engage in the conversation, did. Here is a snippet of that conversation:
I said:
So your best guess besides saying fake photo. Atmospheric lensing, refraction, not Ruapehu, Flat Earth?
He said:
No need for a guess.your photo is of the top 1500 meters of Ruapehu – which is most of what’s above the surrounding land.
I said:
I think that answer is too simple. It ignores the basic shape of the mountain and doesn’t look like half at all. But I have a theory about that which I will share in another post.
He said:
the mountain is less than 2000m above the surrounding land so it’s 3 quarters not half.
What I am trying to understand is his last comment and why the height of Ohakune which represents the altitude of the land that the mountain sits on actually matters. Can you think of a reason? What is he getting at?
Ah, no need to answer Mike. I know what he is saying. Yes, the top of the mountain is the shape because the bottom of the mountain is around 600 metres high, thus there is no shape to that. I didn’t consider that.
Perfect explanation for the photo
So Mike. Here is what I believe is the explanation for my photo.
The basic shape of the mountain starts at 600 metres above sea level, thus the shape should be mostly preserved because the bottom 600 metres doesn’t exist as far as the shape is concerned. Further, if we take into account possible refraction and a blending in of a foreground that is visible to me on my side of the horizon, then I believe that would more than account for it. I say more because we may not need even need the refraction part to explain it.
Mike, one of the commenters in that discussion pointed me to this Youtube Channel. I thought the guy in this channel was quite talented.
Boy, if we thought the tower of Babel brought everyone together then what must we make of the new World Wide Web or www, or in Hebrew vav, vav, vav, or in numerical value 666?
Waw/Vav (wāw “hook”) is the sixth letter of the Semitic abjads, including Phoenician wāw Phoenician waw.svg, Aramaic waw Waw.svg, Hebrew vav ו, Syriac waw ܘ and Arabic wāw و (sixth in abjadi order; 27th in modern Arabic order).
Dig4Truth I know. Plus, the first apple computer sold for $666, and there’s more (but that’s another subject :D)
Again, you’re looking at it backwards. The flat earth model is all there was until 475 years ago, when men, trying to displace the earth from the center of God’s creation, began conspiring to mathematically concoct a world that has no basis in reality. In doing so, they caused the masses to become suspicious of their own lifelong observations that they live on a flat, stationary plane with lights in the sky that move around them on appointed circuits.
Laugh at me if you want, but I always believed we lived on a stationary planet with lights in the sky that move around us (must have been absent when they taught something different at school!)
In his 1881 and 1887 experiments, Albert Michelson discovered the Earth was not moving
around the sun. As Michelson himself described the results of his own experiment: “This
conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth
moves.”1 But since his colleagues, including Albert Einstein, were die‐hard Copernicans
who didn’t want to believe that Michelson had discovered a motionless Earth, they
proposed his experimental apparatus was distorted by the Earth’s motion through space
and thus Michelson’s apparatus only made it appear as if it wasn’t moving. In scientific
parlance, we call this the fallacy of petitio principii, that is, using as proof (a moving Earth)
the very thing one is trying to prove (a moving Earth).Ha ha. Was thinking about my second oldest son when he was about three. He was sitting on the doorstep, and said “Mum, mum, the house is moving”. I said “What?” He said “The house is moving”. I went out to find him looking at the sky, and said “No son, the house isn’t moving, the clouds are!”
Either the earth moves, or it is fixed and stationary – like the Bible clearly says, and like every experiment designed to show it’s movement has confirmed. It’s not a matter of where you’re looking at it. It either spins 1000+ miles per hour at the equator, while orbiting the sun at 66,600 thousand miles per hour, while hurtling through space along with the sun at 600,000 miles per hour… or it doesn’t.
The bottom line is that there has NEVER been an experiment that showed the earth in motion, while there have been many different ones showing the earth at rest.
You would think NASA would be able to get movies of the Earth moving?
Gene: To think men have not been to out space and to the moon back, and there is a big picture and movie cover up, for reasons no one knows, is pure foolishness.
Hi Gene.
Remember that in the last days the whole world will be DECEIVED. “Synonyms: deceive, mislead, delude, dupe, hoodwink, bamboozle. These verbs mean to cause someone to believe something untrue, usually with an ulterior motive in mind.” And to be deceived there will be the deceivers. So always be wary I believe.
Neil Armstrong was the first man to step on the moon. They accomplished this in a space craft with less computing power than the first Nintendo video game console, and landed in a total vacuum environment where temperatures ranged from 250F above to 250F below zero… in this piece of crap made from construction paper, aluminum foil, gold mylar, scotch tape, and curtain rods!
😀
Yeah, time really flies, huh? I’ve been very blessed to have a straight A student who doesn’t get into any of the many kinds of trouble I got into as a teenager. I pray it stays that way. I’ve been very open with him about my many mistakes, and how my biggest one was turning away from God at a young age. He knows that God is real and that big bang evolution is a laughable sham. He’s not 100% with me on the flat earth yet, but says it’s because they haven’t taught him anything about cosmology in school, and so he doesn’t even fully understand the claims and motions in the heliocentric model enough to know whether they’re right or wrong. And I think it’s fantastic that he isn’t just some blind believer of anything Daddy says. We spent years talking about the evolution model he was learning in school, and he put me to the test with some very good questions about the things I was claiming. Iron sharpens iron, and he is a great sharpener. 🙂 He’s doing the same with flat earth, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I could be wrong, after all.
Coool.
My youngest is a high achiever, but he is not too keen on school every day.
My oldest was a straight A student, and is now a NZ police recruit.
I would love to talk more to my youngest like you do. But he tends to listen more to his computer headphones these days, sadly.
T8: I would like to start with boats coming into view or away from the observer when approaching the horizon. The point about it not going over the curve as much as it going out of view seems a fair one to me. Of course that doesn’t prove that it will eventually go over the curve. What happens when the boat disappears when viewed through binoculars? You would have to say that it is out of view of the binoculars right. So the remedy is to have a more powerful pair of binoculars or a capable telescope. So let’s say we did that and again it disappeared and so again we looked through an even more powerful lense. Let’s say we kept doing this or let’s just say we have a device that was capable of viewing say a distance further than the distance between Alaska and New Zealand of which there is only sea thus a clear line of sight between the two. The inescapable conclusion is you would not only see the boat land at the coast of Alaska from New Zealand, but you would see Alaska right. Surely this is a test that many could do. You only need a boat, a very powerful telescope, and away you go. But no one has demonstrated this or demonstrated something similar to this. Yes my photo shows a mountain 300+ km away, but that could be very possible given the size of the globe Earth, but what about Alaska. That would do it for me if I could demonstrate that or if scientists demonstrated it and it was not debunked as a hoax. For the average person, they are just going to believe that you can see tall mountains 300 km away, but they certainly will not believe that you can see a different continent.
Okay, so let’s say your rebuttal is that distant objects disappear on a Flat Earth because of atmospheric distortion, i.e., the light will eventually scatter or something at great distance meaning you cannot receive light between New Zealand and Alaska. So then why is it that if the boat is still there once you produce a powerful lense, then what of the sun? When that appears to go below the horizon, then why can’t we just pull out a telescope and see the sun again? Oh wait, you will blind yourself. Surely this can be done in such a way as to not hurt your eyes. Or why not do it with the moon as you can view that through a telescope right. This is something I can do for myself and am in a perfect situation to do it. Although, I have to admit that I have only ever seen the moon ascend from the horizon, but the experiment could still be done. The telescope would show the moon before just viewing the same scene with the naked eye.
So here is a question Mike.
If I go to the coast and the sun or moon is going down below the horizon, if I then pull out my telescope, I should be able to see the sun / moon again after it has disappeared right?
Things do become invisible the further away they are.
Here are some supposed examples where the Earth itself becomes invisible, and the sun becomes a pixel in size when compared to some others planets in our solar system.
Miia….show me where i don’t understand the math i used, which Mike and you have accused me of, now prove it ok. Is that not a fair request?, truth is i don’t think you or Mike understand the math. Mike shruged it off at the start because it destorys the flat earth garabage, not to mention the lazer test, that show the math is exactly right, Anyone who knows the Pythagoerean Theorem can prove the drop in the circumference of a circle easely from a radius or tangent line. It works perfectly and works with the earth also.
To try to disprove the math, he first said the earth was 25000, miles in cercumference, instead of 24000 I used, so he used that as the reason,to disallow, then produced a picture showing the formula used with the radius of the earth as completely different then what i said, but that was not true, because the “same” math workes with a tangent line and produces the same exact drop in the radius curve as the one they used. Exact same math, just different ways of application.
He wants to have a debate, but makes statements about math i used but never any proof of it not working. So lets see if you or Mike can prove me wrong, instead of making false statements about my math, making it out like i do not understand the math. Prove it, then i would say you have a point, but just saying it is an ansumption on both your parts, and a put down to me on your and his part.
Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
Mike,
you said:
And Kathi can’t even bring herself to show up here and discuss the things I’ve presented.
I have responded here Mike and even gave you the video of a guy that has lived on the space station. So, don’t be dissing me. I gave this some time and I am believing the astronaut that confesses Jesus as Lord as well as the earth being round, spherically speaking because he has seen it from a great distance. There are many astronauts that bear witness to what he said. They have a perspective that most don’t. I hope you get the testing/proof that you need to give you peace. I have peace about this issue. There are more important issues at hand for me personally regarding faith and theology and life. I am not an expert at all, not even close in this subject. My opinion of the measurements are really worthless so I have no business swaying anyone with my opinions here therefore, I don’t. If you really want to test this, contact that astronaut in the video that I put up for you. Regarding the scriptures, no scripture straight out says that the earth is flat. HN has been a great example to show how opposite viewpoints are presented and both can’t be correct yet hype grows on both sides and one side, at least is completely wrong but rarely does anyone change their mind.
I am amazed anytime I fly in an airplane…how do I feel like I am staying still when it goes at such great speeds…how can I even walk around in the airplane? As for this I am sure, if man can figure out about how to regulate air pressure or whatever so I can be comfortable in the airplane, the LORD surely designed the concept and made it possible in the first place.
Mike, I have corrected you twice now, on this thread alone. You missed that Anna had an opinion, you said she had given NO opinion. I corrected you and I don’t believe you said anything about that but I might have missed that post. And now you say that I haven’t discussed your evidence but you can look back at all my posts and I have responded maybe three or four or more times from what I remember. You are not proving yourself capable of making truthful claims in these small things. Why would I consider what you are claiming in these huge things?? You miss little details and speak dogmatically as if you don’t miss the details. Sorry but I believe the astronaut would be the expert perspective on this, not you or anyone of us here. Find that astronaut in the video, let him sharpen you. If I sharpen you, big deal, I am no expert on this.
I hope you find the truth on this Mike, because if you are completely wrong about there being a flat earth, you are spending a lot of effort and quite possibly leading others astray.
I want the best for you. LU
TO ALL…This whole “flat earth” thing, is to get this site off track, talking about worthless nonsense, that no one should even care about. Let those who are into the world waste their time descussing useless trivia like flat earth and conspiracy theories, I tell you it is simply a waste of valubale time. There are thousands of different conspiracy theories out there, that we could spend endless time talking about, and not one of them will add anything to our spritural growth.
We should not lose track of what is really important to God the Father, and our lord the anointed Jesus. IMO
TIME IS SHORT, LETS GET BACK ON TRACK, HERE,
peace and love to you all……..gene
Hi Gene, why are you getting angry at me? Where did I dis your math? I never mentioned it, or anything you said, apart from the short quote above? I don’t even know the math.
Hi @Lightenup, sorry I haven’t got around to replying to you yet, only have my phone today (and most days), and it is almost impossible to post here with it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
