- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Nick: “So because scientists have got some things wrong we should never trust any of their observations. We should trust yours?”
Science is about disproving things. Scientists get things wrong all the time, if they didn’t we would never learn.
Interesting question though, should we trust their observations? Yes, if they are observable, testable and repeatable. Trust them? Not so much.
Do you trust them when they say that we were not created but evolved? Or when they say that that geology proves there was no global flood? I hope not. These things are not testable and repeatable. But they preach it load and clear and try to make people feel like fools if they don’t bow down to their dogma.
Science has evolved into scientism, a religion of intellectuals and their followers that reject God and according to the scriptures, have become fools.
How can a force act on a much denser [and further away] material (water) and not act on a much lighter [and closer] material (atmosphere)?
My guess is the scientific fact (if I can call it that at this stage), is that everything physical has mass even the water and atmosphere. But the water below has more mass and itself more gravitational power than the atmosphere. Unlike a theoretical wind being blown from above affecting the atmosphere and making it swirl around vs the less effect effect on water further away, gravity exerts more power on bigger objects. While I might be able to jump down a three foot bank, an elephant would break his legs if it tried that. The larger the mass of an object, the larger the attraction the earth or any other object exerts on it.
You are correct that if you are not perfectly level to the tabletop then you would probably see the coin all the way.
I argue the other way. If you are truly level, you will see it all the way. That is because light travels in straight lines and if this guy is correct, then the inescapable conclusion is not so much that the Earth is flat, rather that light doesn’t travel in straight lines.
And you don’t need the video as evidence, it is the easiest experiment to do yourself. I got a different result. I crouched level with the table edge and then moved until the back edge of the table merged exactly with the front edge. Of course that is more difficult than it sounds because you can easily overshoot and not know you have done so, thus getting the result in the video. But if you do it right, you can see both the bottom edge of the sliding object while not ever seeing the back edge of the table. I proved this to myself before and did it again just to make sure. I might do a video and post it up to prove it to you, but it is the easiest experiment to do for anyone. And use your smartphone because it requires less focus as you are can focus on the whole edge rather than a small point on a coin.
I tried it again using a simple table mat on a level table. I placed the table mat in the exact position so that the back of it was in direct sunlight and the rest in shadow. This helps a lot because you can then get the edge of the mat to obscure the back edge which is lit up and helps you to do this exactly because the moment the light is blocked you have it level. But be careful to not overshoot because that will result in what you see in the video.
t8, you’re right about the theory of gravity. Larger masses are supposed to have more gravational force. However, as we saw in the last video, not sure if you’ve seen it yet, there is a lot of water in the atmosphere! How much? About 3,200 cubic miles of water in the atmosphere. And let’s not forget about the clouds which are much higher and much denser. In fact some rain storms can drop a tremdous amount of rain in the form of water. Recently in Hawaii it rained, I believe it was 14 to 19 inches in a day. So, your point is taken but I’m not sure if it is the end of this one.
Believe it or not this topic just came to my mind the other day.
Hi Dig4,
Knowledge will increase.
Do you believe only your team offers truth?
You would cast doubt on all others who search the heavens.
You would offer yourself and fellow travellers as the light in the darkness.
But we follow the anointed one who has that appointed role.
His interest was in the salvation of souls.
Without checking this, I would argue that liquid water is way more denser, but I admit that I could be wrong, but do not have time to research this. My thinking is a bucket of water in one hand and a bucket of atmosphere in the other, would lead to to the view that the bucket containing liquid water would weigh much more. In fact, if I was to drop that bucket of water from the atmosphere and there was a tight enough lid on top, I imagine it would fall all the way back to Earth with ease.
I do know this. That water itself has different density. One of my favourite places in the whole world is Fiordland National Park. It is one of the wettest places on Earth and on a rainy day, there are thousands of waterfalls emptying into fiords which are ancient valleys that have been inundated with the ocean. Salt water is more dense than freshwater, so the top of the water is fresh and when you go down you hit the salt water. It is the salt that makes salt water more dense and consequently boats float better on saltwater than freshwater.
Nick, Believers and followers of Christ can have varying views about other things that are not important to salvation. But I believe that we can be led into all truth, but that is not to say any of us have arrived yet. Testing all things to see of they are so.
t8, you may be right but 3,100 cubic miles of water makes a pretty large bucketful.
In your description though, it sounds more like bouyancy and density than gravity. Just an observation.
Thats not necessarily so. Auroras are limited to where the excitement of the atmosphere is located. Just because there is a lot of area doesn’t mean that it must be covered by auroras.
The globe earth explains it better though and it is very simple. Both poles have the same properties and experience about the same amount of auroras. In the Flat Earth, model, there is one pole and the edge of the disk. They both experience auroras for some unknown reason, but less so on the edge of the disk so that it gives around equal auroras due to a much larger area. Why is this and why the same phenomena in completely different areas with different properties, and a hugely different area in size?
Nick: “Knowledge will increase. Do you believe only your team offers truth? You would cast doubt on all others who search the heavens. You would offer yourself and fellow travellers as the light in the darkness. But we follow the anointed one who has that appointed role. His interest was in the salvation of souls.”
Nick, I’m an amature astronomer and I enjoy those who search the heavens. I don’t belong to a team but I do belong to the Raleigh Astronomy Club. Come to think of it, if we were called a “team” we could have a cool acronym – RAT!
Have you thought about the questions I asked earlier? About evolution and geology? Should we all not be a light in this dark world?
t8, you may be right but 3,100 cubic miles of water makes a pretty large bucketful.
In your description though, it sounds more like bouyancy and density than gravity. Just an observation.
The point is density. To give an extreme example, it was hypothesised mathematically decades ago that a star could collapse when its fuel was nearly spent and become so dense that not even light could escape its gravity. Known as black holes as you already know. Recently, stars have been observed spinning around a dark area of the galaxy at incredible speeds. It seems if you can imagine it mathematically, that given the sheer size of the universe, all mathematical possibilities seem to or could well exist somewhere. So the size matters less than density. For example, If I threw huge a piece of polystyrene off a cliff, it may not do that much damage. But if I threw a slab of concrete the same size of a cliff, I bet it would give me more than a bad headache if it hit me. Okay, there is air resistance in these examples, but density exerts more influence is the point.
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?
The bible also says the Lord stretched the north over an empty place and that He hung the Earth upon nothing. Nothing physical because it appears to float because of his laws. And a disk moving upward to create the effect of gravity doesn’t sound much like the Earth hanging or floating to me. And sure the Earth is fixed, science says it is in a fixed orbit and nothing can move it because it sits in the rut created by gravity. The point I make is nothing in the Bible rules out a globe Earth going around the sun. Ruling it out only leads people to have to make a choice as to which is true, scientific observation or the Bible. Sure observation can be wrong, but it can also be right. So let’s not be so quick to say that both cannot exist. Science points to a creator and many of the greatest scientists were also Believers. They had enough sense to see that creation was amazing and required a designer the more you studied it. Science just means knowledge Mike, so knowledge is not all bad.
As for stars falling from the sky, this is completely from our perspective. I have seen stars fall to the sky one at a time of course. One went flying past me almost in horizontal fashion. I wasn’t the only one to see it, my friend witnessed it too. Was a meteor or large piece of rock from space that must have bounced along part of our atmosphere as it was burning up. If all the stars we see were to fall, there could be a number of scientific explanations for that. I would argue that all the explanations would be serious in nature.
As for the moon giving its light, well that argument is like the one about Jesus creating the cosmos. Was it him or through him, I say the latter. Does the moon emit light, yes that is obvious. But it is not the source of that light. Is Jesus the truth, yes? But again, he is not the source of that truth, his Father is right?
t8: “The globe earth explains it better though and it is very simple. Both poles have the same properties and experience about the same amount of auroras. In the Flat Earth, model, there is one pole and the edge of the disk. They both experience auroras for some unknown reason, but less so on the edge of the disk so that it gives around equal auroras due to a much larger area. Why is this and why the same phenomena in completely different areas with different properties, and a hugely different area in size?”
Ok, the questions are getting harder. I would have to say that I don’t know. However, I do have an opinion.
The earth acts like a magnet and has forces that would circle the earth whether it was a sphere or flat. There are flat circular magnets. So the same phenomenon would be seen at the center or the edge. Other than that I’d have to say we were just guessing.
Hi dig4,
Yes scientism, a branch of humanism, offers alternative truths.
Insecure men seek to control everything but God evades their grasp.
Nick: Hi Mike,
So all who came before are liars and thieves?
Flat earthers alone possess the truth.
hmmm
That’s a decision you’ll have to make for yourself. I’m just here to pass on some interesting information. What you do with it is up to you.
Hi Dig4,
Yes the Christ sent his followers to preach the gospel to all people.
They are to carry his Father’s light everywhere.
But some get sidelined by earthly stuff.
Gene: Nick, yea these “johnny come lately’s”, all the sudden know more then hundered of thousand of scientest, astronauts, astronomers, mathmaticions, physicists, who have proven the earth is round over and over know.
There has never been a time this earth was without flat earthers, Gene. On the other hand, for the first 93% of the time man has occupied this earth, there has only been flat earthers. The ball earthers are the newcomers. Now if only they’d brought some observational evidence with them.
I don’t know why this subject is provoking so much anger and animosity from you. I’m merely showing you some things I found very interesting. Things that simply don’t align with the world we’ve been told we live in. Things you can check out for yourself. Why are you getting so mad about it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
