- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Mike even if my calculation figures were wrong, the formula works exactly as it should from a tangent line outside the warth or a inside radius . The formula workd the same. And i believe you well know thatm you just can’t accept the truth. ANY 8 GRADE MATH STUDENT KNOWS THAT YOUCERTANLY CAN PROVE A DROP IN THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF A CIRICLE, BY USING THE PPYTHAGOREAM THEOREM.
SHOW ME ONE TRUE MATHMATION THAT DOESN’T KNOW THAT, SHOW ME ONE. INFACT IF THE EXACT FUGURES ARE USED YOU CAN CALULATE THE DROP DOWN TO FRACTION IF YOU HAD THE “EXACT” MEASUREMENTS.
BY SAYING I USED DIFFERENT FIGURES THEN THEIRS IN NO WAY DISPROVES THE MATH. I BELIEVE YOU ACTUALLY KNOW THAT, AND CAN’T DISPROVE THE MATH, SO YOU SIMPLY COP OUT, TO THROW ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE PROOF OF A ROUND EARTH.
In the flat earth model, the south pole is the entire circumference. That this kind of magnetic quality exists is verified by the existence of ring magnets (like in speakers), which also have a north pole at their center, with the south pole being the entire outer ring. In the flat earth model, we don’t discount electric and magnetic activity as causes of many phenomena we witness.
By that reckoning, we should observe auroras thousands if not millions of times more in my part of the world than the north pole.
To all even if my calculation figures were wrong, the formula works exactly as it should from a tangent line outside the earth or inside
Using the earths radius . The formula works the same. And i believe Mike well know that he just can’t accept the truth. ANY half way decent 8 GRADE MATH STUDENT KNOWS THAT, YOU CERTANLY CAN PROVE A DROP a CIRCUMFERENCE OF A CIRICLE, BY USING THE PPYTHAGOREAM THEOREM.SHOW ME ONE TRUE MATHMATION THAT DOESN’T KNOW THAT, SHOW ME ONE. INFACT IF THE EXACT FUGURES ARE USED YOU CAN CALULATE THE DROP DOWN TO FRACTION of a inch, IF YOU HAD THE “EXACT” MEASUREMENTS.
BY SAYING I USED DIFFERENT FIGURES THEN THEIRS IN NO WAY DISPROVES THE MATH. Mike I BELIEVE YOU ACTUALLY KNOW THAT, AND CAN’T DISPROVE THE MATH, SO YOU SIMPLY COP OUT, TO THROW ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE PROOF OF A ROUND EARTH.
Here is a Experment for any eight grader out there.
Draw a 6 inch cricle, now draw a straight line that touches the circle anywhere along the circumference, now go out one inch from the touch point and make 90 degree line to a point on the circumference of the ciricle, now go out on the touch point of the tangent line again 2 inches, and draw another 90 degree line back to the cercumference again. You should have two right trangels along the tangent line, now measure the destance from where the 90 degree line touches the cercumference to the start of touch point of the tangent line. Apply the pathagram theram, and you will know how much the drop was from the start point, and do it again with the last right trangle you drewed, subtract the two 90 degree lines that touch the circumference and you have the drop. This works on all circles including the earth. No matter what the flat Earthers say. They have never disproved it. This anyone here can prove for themselves.
They play on people who do not know the math. Don’t take my word for it just look it up on the internet there are hundreds of example of how the pathagram theram works on circle to show there cercumference slope or drop.
Thats proof, not supositions like flat earthers use. IMO
Peace and love to you all and yours.
How bright, exactly, is the sun? You’re imagining a nuclear furnace a million times bigger than the earth, 93 million miles away. We’re imagining a small heat lamp a few hundred miles up in the sky… not too far above the clouds
The fact remains, you should still observe the sun after it dissappears, and at varying distances, because the sun would eventually be blocked by mountains at random distances. So what and where is the longest distance that the sun has been tracked. New Zealand toward Alaska? Where can I get the data on this?
T8: The basic shape of the mountain starts at 600 metres above sea level…
What do you mean by “sea level”? Does it start 600 meters above the Pacific? The Atlantic? The Indian? There is no such thing as “sea level” in a ball earth, T8. In the globe model, it is “sea curve”, in which case the idea of measuring the height of things above “sea level” is absurd. Of course in reality, it is called “sea level”, because that’s what all the water on the earth is… level. Standing water doesn’t curve. It seeks and retains its own level – despite the shape of that which contains it.
T8: 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.
The mountain is 2797 meters high, and at a height of 248 meters, 204 Km away, 1716 meters should be hidden behind the curvature of the earth – leaving only 1081 meters visible to your location.
That means your photo is only showing the top third of the entire mountain. Do you think that is the case? I certainly don’t, judging from these photos (I cropped yours to see the mountain better)…
Looks to me like you’ve captured the entire mountain… including the tree line. What do you think?Hey T8, I did a little “expert” analysis on the photos. 🙂 Do you see the same three landmarks/boulders that I have circled? Do you see the same treeline I drew an oval around in each photo? Do you see the same 5 peaks that I do?
Dude, I hate to tell you this again, but I think you’ve taken a picture of the entire mountain from 127 miles away – an impossible feat if we lived on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. I’m going to post your photo and name all over YouTube! You’re going to be the biggest flat earth hero there ever was! 🙂
Here’s another version…
- The red on the left is the same shadowed slope. Look how much of it is in your photo.
- Pink is the same triangular shadow from the peak.
- Orange shows the same snow-covered ridge. Again, look how far it goes down in yours.
- Yellow is the treeline in the foreground.
- Blue to yellow is the transition from rocky snow-covered mountain to the treeline in the foreground.
- Green looks like the same patch of snow that extends a little lower than the majority of the snowline.
One more test to go…
The red is the distance across the four main peaks in both photos. The blue is from peak to lower treeline. The length of red and blue are almost identical in both photos, and we can see the blue hit the treeline in both. I know this cheesy drawing wouldn’t hold up in court, but I think it’s good enough for us to see that you’ve captured that entire mountain.
A better side by side crop…
Anyone else think T8 has captured pretty much the entire mountain? Anyone think his photo only shows the top third of it?
T8: Mike, one of the commenters in that discussion pointed me to this Youtube Channel. I thought the guy in this channel was quite talented.
He’s an Aussie transplant living in Spain right now. He sings like an American southern boy, but talks like a regular old Australian. His songs are witty, hilarious, and loaded with tons of great information. We all love him. He’s working on a couple more songs to complete an album. I’ll definitely be buying it, because as of now, he’s done all that work and uploaded all those songs for free.
miia: Dig4Truth I know. Plus, the first apple computer sold for $666, and there’s more (but that’s another subject :D)
There’s a lot more, and the heliocentric model is a big part of the entire deception. The rabbit hole runs very, very deep.
miia: 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!”
At least he had the excuse of only being three when he said that. Albert Einstein in his prime said that whether the carriage moves over the ground or the ground is moving under the stationary carriage is only a matter of perspective, as either could be the case. Utter nonsense.
miia: You would think NASA would be able to get movies of the Earth moving?
Apparently, they can only capture video of it spinning, like this wonderful footage of the dark side of the moon from one million miles away…
How believable is that? You’d think for 52 million dollars a day, NASA would be able to produce some better CGI. This looks like it was done with I Phone Movie Maker by a 2nd grader. But then again, Elon Musk said about his Tesla Roadster in space footage, “You can tell it’s real because it looks so fake.” So maybe NASA thinks people really believe that the faker it looks, the more real it must be? 🙂
t8: “Good question. A quick google showed me this:
the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do.
Consider an example where we’ve pumped all of the air out of some box and created a vacuum inside of it. Let’s say we’re on Earth, at sea level, and we poke a hole in the box. What will happen?
Air will rush into the box and fill it. Okay. But why did it do that? Was it because the vacuum sucked the air into the box? No.
What’s actually happening there is that the air pressure around the box is forcing air into the space with no pressure. The air that fills the box is being pushed by air pressure into the empty space.
Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum.
Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.
And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.
Of course I can neither prove this or disprove this. That would take time and resources. But it sounds logical on the outset.”Basically nil? We are told that gravity holds down the atmosphere. As the air becomes thinner the higher you go there is less gravity supposedly, therefore less force holding it in. (Remember that a vacuum is extremely powerful as the example of the railroad car imploding illustrates! And that was with a much less powerful vacuum!)
I don’t think that because the air is thin that a vacuum would ignore it. In fact it could argued that a vacuum would devour the thinner air more quickly. This would then be replaced by more air from lower areas and then the process would continue.
We know that water is denser than air. If the moon effects the ocean tides would it not also effect the atmosphere?
I could understand if the process of the vacuum drawing off our atmosphere was slower than one might imagine, but not at all is way too much for the scientific part of my brain to believe. Given the illedged billions of years of earth’s age this becomes even more implausible.
I liked Mike’s example of the moon lander. Yeh, I wouldn’t take that to the top of a mountain much less the vacuum of space.
And we can keep it simple. When experiments have been done where there are different pressures of gasses they have always equalized when exposed to each other. Or even closer to this topic the gas always equalizes in a vacuum.
Hey Mike, about how long do you think that moon transit was? I would guess maybe several to 6 hours of time? Maybe more?
Funny but the clouds didn’t change shape. Hmm.
miia: 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.
You’re a Kiwi, miia? For some reason I was thinking that you were from the UK. Yeah, it’s hard to pull kids (and adults) from their electronic devices these days.
miia: 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.
So let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine the sun was right next to the earth. If we looked up in the sky, we’d see nothing but sun, right? Now, move it back to where it currently is, at 93 million miles away from us. It is about the size of a dime at arm’s length, right? So from everything we can see in the sky to the size of a dime in 93 millions miles, right?
Okay, let’s double that distance away from us. How big do you think it would look to us on earth then? According to the inverse square law, it should now be ¼ the size of a dime. But now let’s move it away from us another 4 times that distance. Do you think you could still see it at all?
That’s one light hour away from us. So we’d have to take it another 24 times farther than that to even get to one light day away from us. Now could we see it? Not a chance. Yet NASA tells us the closest star to us is Alpha Centauri, at 4.3 light years away from us. And that we can see V762 Cas, with the naked eye, at a staggering 16,308 light years away.
Come on guys… does that really make any sense to you?
Hey Mike, I thought this was interesting.
Man measures star distances using parallax trigonometry. By choosing two measurable observation points and making an imaginary triangle to a third point, and using simple trigonometry, man calculates the distance to the third point.
The most distant observation points available to an earthbound observer are the positions of the earth in solar orbit six months apart, say June and December. This would create a triangle of 186,000,000 miles, which equals only 16 light minutes. There are 525,948 minutes in a year. Even if the nearest star were only one light year away (and it isn’t), the angle at the third point measures .017 degrees.(Mike, this assumes the very thing that we are debating – that the earth revolves around the sun. If it doesn’t then what about that parallax stuff.)
In simpler terms, a triangle like this would be the same angle two surveyors would see if they were standing sixteen inches apart and focusing on a third point 525,948 inches or 8.24 miles away. If they stayed 16 inches apart and focused on a dot 824 miles away, they would have the same angle as an astronomer measuring a point 100 light years away.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception_stars_lightyears_distance#!
Kathi: 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?
Try opening a door or taking the roof off, and see how still you feel then. 🙂
Kathi: My opinion of the measurements are really worthless…
Don’t sell yourself short. If someone is telling you 2+2=5, then you’re opinion on the matter is just as relevant as anyone else’s.
Kathi: If you really want to test this, contact that astronaut in the video that I put up for you.
Perhaps you could do that for me, and ask him if he was able to see stars when he was up there. I’m working on a video now that will be a compilation of astronauts through the years talking about seeing stars in space. Some of them say they could, some say they couldn’t, and some say they can’t remember. Really? You spent days or weeks in an environment that precious few have ever experienced, and you can’t remember whether or not you saw stars? 🙂 So which of these astronauts – most of whom claim to be Christians – shall we believe?
While you’re anxiously awaiting my video, perhaps you could spend a minute and a half watching this funny version from a Christian flat earther who has uncovered many heliocentric flaws just by doing personal investigation…
Kathi: Regarding the scriptures, no scripture straight out says that the earth is flat.
But scripture does say the earth is fixed and cannot be moved, right? And it does say the earth rests on pillars, right? And Joshua did command the sun and the moon to stand still in the sky – as opposed to commanding both the earth and moon to stop rotating and orbiting, right? And Jesus did say “the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give her light, and the stars will fall from the sky”, right? Doesn’t that tell us the moon has it’s own light to give, which aligns with God saying He created the sun and moon as TWO lights in the firmament? And that’s good, because it is beyond obvious that – despite what the heliocentrists have told us – the sun is not what lights the moon. And how will stars “fall” from the sky? “Fall” to where? In Revelation he says they will fall to the earth. Can a single star fall to the earth in the heliocentric model?
Kathi: Mike, I have corrected you twice now, on this thread alone. … 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??
Did you really just call me a liar? Shame. Perhaps there is another explanation…
Kathi: 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.
From my point of view, you didn’t correct me… I just didn’t feel the need to correct you on the matter. Of course I saw the words she posted. But in my opinion, popping in just to say, “There’s no such thing as flat earth” is not really saying anything about the topic. After all, there’s only been an alternative to the flat earth for 475 years, and there has never been a time in that 475 years when the validity of the alternative model wasn’t questioned, shot down with observational evidence, and subsequently altered. They’re still continually altering their various models today. So of course there’s such a thing as “flat earth”. It’s has been the ONLY thing for the vast majority of the history of mankind. So should I have said, “Is so!”, and then she could have responded, “Nunh unh.” 🙂 Granted, Anna posted some words. But no, Anna didn’t actually say anything that could even remotely be considered a valid comment regarding the subject of this thread. Nor did the guy who dropped by to say, “I can’t believe this is even a discussion in this day and age” – or words to that effect.
Kathi: 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.
This is precisely like the Anna thing, Kathi. You want to know how you “discussed” the scriptures I presented to you in the other thread? Mike, I looked at those scriptures, and didn’t see anything suggesting a flat earth. Wow, Kathi… what a great and insightful discussion we had. 🙂 I had in mind an actual discussion about these things…
- Is the moon its own light, as God and Jesus both clearly imply, and as observational evidence clearly proves?
- Can we see Chicago from Michigan, despite heliocentrists saying it is impossible due to the curve of the earth?
- Did God cause the sun and the moon to stand still in the sky, like scripture says, or the earth and moon to stop rotating and orbiting, like the heliocentric model dictates?
- Will stars actually fall from the sky to earth, as Jesus said? Or is that impossible since a single star couldn’t even get close to the earth without melting it away, as the heliocentric model dictates?
So are you willing to actually discuss any of these things? Or do you still think that saying in passing that you don’t see anything relevant in those scriptures is “having a discussion” about them?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
