- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8: Of course, with the heliocentric model, we can also predict eclipses and the like with 100% accuracy. The math is based from the heliocentric view and you can picture the math with the heliocentric view. The Flat Earth has no such prediction model. The truth tends to be 100% accurate.
The math has been known for millennia, and is based on simple observations over long periods of time. The movements of the heavenly bodies is the same from our earthbound perspective regardless of the shape of the world. So once again, NO, the “predictions” have absolutely nothing to do with the heli model, and they are the same as seeing the minute hand on the 8, and “predicting” it will be on the 9 in five minutes. They aren’t predictions at all, but merely the ability to read the sky clock God created for that very purpose.
T8: Okay even if Science is not your forte, try and understand it like this.
At sea level the PSI is higher than it is higher up in the atmosphere…
Learn the difference between buoyancy, density, and vacuum. Within a pressurized system, there can be layers. There is no layering between pressurized and vacuum (the absence of pressure).
https://images.app.goo.gl/TPCMPgcF2NBreBPXA
What would happen if we put that density column in a vacuum?
T8: The Original Flat Earthers
Ignoramuses persecuting people who discovered truth.The original flat earthers were Adam and Eve. Then every single person who lived up until perhaps 500 years ago – when Satan’s sun-worshiping religion began to take hold in the minds of those who either hated God or, at the least were willing to hold the fantasies of godless men in higher esteem than the written word of God.
Ed: That language is symbolic, it is not saying the Sun and Moon are gone.
No Night there is also symbolic of ‘darkness’, as in evil, not nightime.How could you know such a thing? Compare…
Revelation 22:5
There will be no more night in the city, and they will have no need for the light of a lamp or of the sun. For the Lord God will shine on them, and they will reign forever and ever.They will “have no need for the sun”. Kind of silly to have a sun when there is no need for it.
Isaiah 60:19-20
No longer will the sun be your light by day, and the brightness of the moon will not shine on you; for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your splendor. Your sun will no longer set, and your moon will not wane; for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and the days of your sorrow will cease…Isaiah makes it pretty clear that the sun and moon won’t exist at all. Unless you think the unnecessary sun will just hover in the sky forever, not doing anything and never setting.
Anyway, your “symbolic” analogy is besides the point. The point was that there is a distinct scriptural difference between the sun, the day, and light. Light is possible without the sun. Day is possible without the sun. So there is no SCRIPTURAL reason for you to suggest that God didn’t know what He was talking about when He said He created the sun on day 4. There are only SECULAR personal reasons. And might I suggest that you lean not on your own understanding, but trust in Jehovah with your whole heart? (Proverbs 3:5)
Ed: Where’s the mathematical model for explaining how NZ gets a longer sun-cycle during our Winter?
I’m not at my computer right now, but will try to show you later. In the meantime, is a spinning ball orbiting the sun the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation?
Since it’s not, my ability or inability to provide a mathematical model is irrelevant. If I couldn’t, it wouldn’t verify your model. And if I could, it wouldn’t refute your model.
That’s why I like to stick to points that don’t require mathematical constructs to “verify” them. Because mathematical constructs are a dime a dozen. Like Ellis said, he could construct a mathematical model with the earth at the center of the universe, and nobody could disprove it with observational evidence. He went on to say that they could only reject it on purely philosophical grounds. And he finished by saying that most of cosmology tries to hide this fact.
In other words, the heli model is the accepted model because the vast majority of cosmologists and astrophysicists abhor the idea of the earth having a special place or significance in our accidental, meaningless universe. (And yes, there are quite a few of them who admit this as well. Let me know if you want to see some quotes.) So these godless men like Carl Sagan, who want people to believe we live on an insignificant pale blue dot, won’t admit their model is a philosophical one. They instead lead you to believe that the heli model is based on facts – and imply things like predicting eclipses is impossible without it. They are lying to you to eliminate God and place more importance on themselves. That’s right… these men who feel important because they have a PhD in PSEUDOSCIENCE want to keep YOU thinking they’re important too. Lol 😁 It’s like having a PhD in “bigfootololgy”, or “paranormal slimeology” like the Ghostbusters. 🤣😅
But no, me having a model – or even a cursory explanation – of why days are longer or shorter here or there is not a very good litmus test of whether or not we live on a spinning ball orbiting the sun.
live on an insignificant pale blue dot, won’t admit their model is a philosophical one.
But of course it is not insignificant. Every hair on our head is numbered. There are billions of us, but Jesus died for each person. We are tiny compared to the Earth, but more important.
Further, you do realise we are not the only world right?
In other words, the heli model is the accepted model because the vast majority of cosmologists and astrophysicists abhor the idea of the earth having a special place or significance in our accidental, meaningless universe.
The godless can draw a conclusion from the same facts that Believers who see the wonderful eternal nature of the creator through his creation. The problem is the heart of man not the creation. Jesus said that even if a man came back from the dead to warn people of Hell, they still wouldn’t believe.
Revelation 22:5
There will be no more night in the city, and they will have no need for the light of a lamp or of the sun. For the Lord God will shine on them, and they will reign forever and ever.They will “have no need for the sun”. Kind of silly to have a sun when there is no need for it.
Not silly at all. The sun holds the earth in an orbit and gives us heat. Yes it gives us light, but the light of God supersedes any other source of light. Further, it might only be possible for spiritual beings to see that light as people who experience NDEs often say. Leaving physical light for new people who are physically born. So many options here but needless to say, that God is light and he is a spirit. The sun provides physical light.
Think of the river of life vs rivers of liquid water. Both exist right?
The original flat earthers were Adam and Eve.
Show me the Adam and Eve model of creation. Did they excavate it recently? lol.
To much speculation Mike. We do not know what they knew or didn’t know regarding the universe.
Mike, I watched the first part of that video with the coin. I noticed that the horizon was moving up and down which would change the angle. Surely it should be perfectly still. Regardless, let’s say that things can disappear in this way, it still doesn’t negate that things disappear bottom up on a globe or the shape of the Earth we see in images and video.
In other words, the heli model is the accepted model because the vast majority of cosmologists and astrophysicists abhor the idea of the earth having a special place or significance in our accidental, meaningless universe.
Rubbish. People know the earth is a globe and lots of people hate God. It’s as simple as that. Your grasping at straws trying to fit the Flat Earth into these things.
Learn the difference between buoyancy, density, and vacuum. Within a pressurized system, there can be layers. There is no layering between pressurized and vacuum (the absence of pressure).
Water still has PSI or pressure and you don’t see what you say would happen do you?
As for buoyancy, things float when they are lighter. A boat floats when it is lighter than water and a helium balloon floats for the same reason.
As for your last point. Pressure will eventually lead to zero pressure somewhere unless you want to state that there are no areas of zero pressure.
So an area of zero or almost zero pressure is going to be near an area of slightly more pressure and so on. It is not going to jump from zero to 15 psi for example, which your examples always seem to show. So unrealistic. Sensational BS is what I call that.
Actually, it is God who gave us the Biblical description of the world He created. And it is Jesus who warned us that the devil would deceive – even the elect if possible – with great signs and wonders. But you go on poking fun at your Lord and your Creator if you think it’s wise. As for me and my house, we will worship and believe Jehovah.
A silly statement because it assumes to worship YHWH, you need to join a cult, particularly the Flat Earth cult. Not true Mike.
No, it’s called “we can’t prove, after decades in ‘outer space’, that the earth orbits the sun”.
Your only argument against this is to believe that Japanese shape shifting lizard people are involved in a conspiracy with the other nationalities of lizard people to spend trillions of dollars of human tax revenue to make us believe the universe is amazing and near infinite proving God’s eternal nature by the things he has made. Seems a bit dumb to me, but whatever.
Mike Debunked again
I’ve said or alluded to a number of times here is Mike puts in a lot of time on this subject, so obviously we are not going to be able to debunk everything he says because we are not willing to put in the time required to rebut all his claims. So what I do is refute the easy stuff in as less words as possible and might spend extra time on more difficult things. Thankfully, there are others out there on YouTube in particular who have spent the time needed to show where he is going wrong and I have posted some of that stop including a video from Daz the cameraman. I really like this because I can post someone else’s hard work and reap the benefit here.
Sun & Moon Angles 5.1 Refraction Reaction
Where Mike went wrong this time
T8: Mike, I watched the first part of that video with the coin. I noticed that the horizon was moving up and down which would change the angle. Surely it should be perfectly still. Regardless, let’s say that things can disappear in this way, it still doesn’t negate that things disappear bottom up on a globe or the shape of the Earth we see in images and video.
Now who is denying science? If you can’t understand something that is being easily described and demonstrated right in front of your eyes then why should we regard any of your conclusions?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
