- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 3 days, 20 hours ago by
.
- Posts
D4T: Mike, great diagrams of the moon’s eclipse. Yes, I listen to Mark’s videos and I enjoyed the one you posted on the railgun!
Thanks! 🙂 I’m also working this top-down eclipse dilemma on the Quora question answering site right now.
I want some answers, man! Lol. I finally got a chance today to listen to the interview of the guy with two Masters Degrees in physics that you sent me, and I’m currently in the middle of the one you posted a long time ago with the two NASA employees. Did you catch this week’s Globebusters? They went through that recent “20 Questions Flat Earthers Can’t Answer” video that David posted here a while back… and answered every question. It’s a 4 hour program, but well worth it… as Globebusters always is.
I’m back to 12 hour days for right now, so I’m beat by the time I get home from work. It doesn’t help that it’s been well over 100 degrees in Phoenix, and I’m outside in the direct sun for the majority of the day. But I’ll try to catch up with the thread over the weekend.
Taken from Paekakariki Hill today. Another shot of Ruapehu. Obviously not taken by me this time. But might head up tomorrow and see if I can get another photo and also a video. The weather is really cold at the moment and the air is very clear.
T8: …the famous and perplexing Double Slit Experiment in physics even alludes to observation being of primary importance before anything becomes even physical.
Mike: Are they suggesting that a flower doesn’t actually exist unless someone happens to be looking at it?
The way you perceive it only. Obviously it exists, but the experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching are actual processed in the brain. The organs for each sense merely receives the waves or signals.
Similarly, this webpage exists, but not like this. It is in actual fact bits and bytes flying through fibre and wirelessly in the air to reach your computer and browser. Think of the browser as your brain. It interprets/renders these data bits into this web page or reality.
Here’s another one, Gene…
Not necessarily so Mike.
This can happen when you select the object (earth) using the box selection and then brightening that selection or increasing saturation. Yes the dark area will brighten up, but you can fill the original dark color back in with the Paint Bucket without affecting the Earth.
Mike, when are you going to shake your head, and come out of this stupidy you have fallen into?
Like beatlejuice, when his head was spinning and he grabbed it with both hands to stop it and said, “don’t you hate it when that happens”, this is all “coo,coo cookie tue Mike, ☺ lol.
Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
Hi Gene,
Yes his ideas are nonsense.
But he does not deny and mock the teachings of Jesus Christ.
But you do.
But that’s up to you. I’m not watching any more of your videos anyway, because I tried to have a point-by-point discussion of the very first one you and Anthony presented on this thread, and you two couldn’t even stick around long enough to finish the discussion on the very first globe “proof” in that very first video.
Let me get this straight. I cannot answer all the questions demonstrated by videos but when I find a video that debunks a point or points, then you will not watch the video. No wonder you believe the earth is flat then. Wilful ignorance is bliss.
I will put the relevant points into my own words. It will actually help me to understand the answers better too.
Mike,
Here are my thoughts about the lunar eclipse as it eclipses from the top down or from the bottom up. It has to do with what hemisphere you are on. In other words, to those on the Northern hemisphere, if the moon is going from 5 degrees north of the ecliptic plane to 5 degrees south of the ecliptic plane in it’s orbit, it will eclipse from the bottom up and if it is going from 5 degrees south of the ecliptic plane to 5 degrees north of the ecliptic plane it will eclipse from the top down. The darkest part of the moon during a lunar eclipse is the shadow of the umbra, the lighter part of the moon during a lunar eclipse is the shadow of the penumbra not direct sunlight.
Something to think about. The penumbra isn’t just on the left and right side of the umbra but it is also on the top and bottom of the umbra. The penumbra is the “shadow” of the earth that is closest to the sun’s direct rays and so will not be as dark of a shadow. I don’t know about the refraction of the light rays as they pass through the atmosphere but that probably has something to do with making it look brighter.
That, so far, is my best guess. I’m no astrophysicist though.
I hope that helps!
Now that I have spent soooooo much time on your thread, would you be so kind as to answer the “2 Commandment…” topic that I started if you haven’t done so already, please?
Thanks, I know you will 😉
Nick….show ne where i “mock” any teachings, of Jesus, what i mock is you misunderstandings of what he was saying. THINGS like there real exists a beelzeebub, (the lord of the flies of the pagans) and not uderstanding Jesus said “IF” I cast out”, he didn’t say he did that as you believe. You seem to take everything literal, as if Jesus said he did, when he actually said “IF”, WE ALL KNOW Jesus cast them out by the power of God, which had nothing to do with those JEWISH, FABLES, THOSE YOU BELIEVE ARE REAL. LIKE STILL ALIVE AFTER YOU DIE AND ECT. No Nick “some” of the thing you say, counterdict Jesus and other scriptures also. IMO
JODI, CLEARLY EXPLAIND THIS TO YOU, BUT YOU STILL CAN’T SEEM TO PUT IT TOGETHER.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
T8: All your doing is trying to prove the Bible is wrong whether you realise it or not.
If big bang, deep time, heliocentric cosmology is right, the Bible is wrong. If stellar, chemical and biological evolution is right, the Bible is wrong.
What I’m trying to prove is that we can trust the authority of God’s written word over the imaginative stories told by godless men.
T8. “Do you take into consideration the outside air rushing past your 100 km/h speeding enclosed car as you throw a ball in the air and catch it. How come you never see people calculating anything to work out where the ball will be after 1 second or so at that speed. No, you just throw the ball as if you were standing still on Earth because both the moving car and moving earth have atmosphere that move with them.”
The ball simply falls back to the same spot because in relation to the car you are not moving. The same would happen in your living room.
Let’s do another mental experiment. Let’s say that you are in a vacuum enviornment and traveling at 60 or 70 mph on a motorcycle. If you thru the ball up would it fall back into your hand?
Maybe if you didn’t throw it too high. At that point the ball still has the same forward momentum as you do. However, if you threw it very high it would loose forward momentum and fall behind even without any atmosphere. Your motorcycle would keep up the speed because it is using force against the surface where the ball ceases to have any new forward momentum.
Now let’s apply that to an airplane on earth. What happens when the airplane goes against the rotation of the earth? Well, the atmosphere is traveling at 1,000 mph+ at the equator and even faster at higher elevations because of the added circumference. So what happens? Does the airplane need to travel at more than 1,000 mph to simply make any headway? Remember that the atmosphere follows the rotation of the earth if I’m understanding you correctly.
Just curious what your answer would be. Does the airplane need to travel 1,000+ mph?
Dig: The ball simply falls back to the same spot because in relation to the car you are not moving…
Boom! And the atmosphere is moving with the Earth, so in relation to the earth’s surface the atmosphere is not moving.
So the airplane flying through the atmosphere is in relation to the earth surface and atmosphere which are all close to still in relation. So if the plane goes 500 km/h for one hour in an easterly direction, then it will cover around 500 km and will do so in a westerly direction too.
Think of a tennis ball in a bucket of water. If you spin the ball, the water around it will also spin. Test it by placing a ping pong ball in the water and it will go into orbit around the tennis ball. Think of the water as the atmosphere. Not hard to do since the atmosphere is made up of a number of things including water vapor.
So a plane is like the ping pong ball going around the tennis ball. So if it propels itself eastward or westward, it will cover around the same distance because everything is in relation to earth.
Mike: Here – invest 40 seconds of research…
https://youtu.be/ql_TTguKxnE
Was looking through posts I have missed and thought I would reply to this post directly.The video in your post Mike is debunked. The boat in the video is on the near side of the horizon and is small, so disappears due to its size, not the curvature of the Earth. But ocean liners and ocean tankers going over the horizon disappear from the bottom up as you would expect if the earth was globe shaped.
This immediately raised the question about antiquity and the observed sails appearing before seeing the whole boat. Wouldn’t they too be too small to see like the above video? Then I realised that boats were actually pretty big back then because they had very high sails.
Mike: If big bang, deep time, heliocentric cosmology is right, the Bible is wrong.
Boom! That is the deception. Get as many Christians believing this and then the world can say with confidence, that the Bible has been proven wrong. Sad part would be that the Bible isn’t saying what you are saying Mike. The Bible is way to brief on the subject and the Bible talks to us through the way we perceive reality and gives us a bigger picture from there. The detail you give is too much to draw from the Bible. Further, the Bible says the sun sets or goes down and your Flat Earth Biblical model doesn’t have the sun go under the disk. So nothing fits the Bible if you take it the literal way you do. Just understand that the Bible uses concepts, idioms, etc to describe things sometimes. It also says that all that is visible came from that which is invisible. Yes, the Universe that we see now was once invisible, but knoweldge increased Mike, just as the Bible said it would.
Mike: If stellar, chemical and biological evolution is right, the Bible is wrong.
This one I generally agree with. However, Evolution is a collective term and parts of Evolution are actually true. But I agree that its main premise is false. An earlier theory introduced ‘Survival of the fittest’ and the guy who came up with this was a Christian and he believed that the best traits of species had a better chance to be pass on due to the success and longer life these traits would bring a species. This ensured the species would stay intact or it would preserve the species rather than it dying out or change into something less or something else as Darwin later expressed. He borrowed/stole this idea and used it to draw an opposite conclusion. Of course, there has never been proof of Evolution being the mechanism in which species arose or the mechanism as to how the universe arose. It is mostly a fanciful idea for people who do not like the idea that there is a God.
Mike, millions of souls have rejected the Bible as a book of authority on truth because men have misrepresented it. How would you feel if you went to Judgement and had to tell God why you taught that Hell was eternal and you had to give an account as to the souls that were lost because they just thought the Bible had to be wrong on that subject. Turns out it is not even taught in the Bible, so completely unnecessary right? Yet here you are doing the same thing. Turning people off the Bible by convincing them that the Bible is out of touch with modern observation of the universe and earth. Pity you have to be so polarising by forcing people to believe in a Flat Earth or the Bible is wrong. Sad. And you have involved your own son in this experiment of yours. I can’t see this ending well honestly. Someone has to tell you Mike. Unseen consequences can come from things like this.
I will tell you something else too. People I grew up with that are involved in Conspiracy Theories like the Jews run the world, Ancient Aliens, Chemtrails, 1080, water fluoridation to dumb down the masses, etc, they all smoke pot regularly. Just saying.
T8: “Boom! And the atmosphere is moving with the Earth, so in relation to the earth’s surface the atmosphere is not moving.”
No boom. In the case of my example with the motorcycle, its force was against the road and with the airplane its force is against the atmosphere.
Now if the road was moving at 60 mph in one direction and I was traveling in the opposite direction, how fast would I have to be going to make any headway? Think of a conveyer belt or an escalator. I would have to be traveling over 60 mph!
With an airplane its force is against the atmosphere, which you believe is moving at 1,000+ mph near the equator. So if it is going against that force how can it make any headway only traveling at 500 mph? The answer is it cannot, it would need to go faster than 1,000 to make any headway.
T8: “The video in your post Mike is debunked. The boat in the video is on the near side of the horizon and is small, so disappears due to its size, not the curvature of the Earth. But ocean liners and ocean tankers going over the horizon disappear from the bottom up as you would expect if the earth was globe shaped.”
No, it is not debunked. But the boats and ships going over the curve IS debunked in this video.
It deals with two considerations; one in from 1-10 min and the second is from 10-16. Both debunk the curve.
What you are observing in your video is the magnification of objects and a mirage effect due to atmospheric interference, and an accumulative effect of waves that hide lower portions of any ship at a distance.
If you want to claim perspective, which you should, you also need to apply it fairly especially when it is a proven and scientifically established effect of why the lower portions of ships can in some instances be hidden by the above factors. Ignoring those factors and just claiming curvature would not be fair in my opinion.
T8: “Further, the Bible says the sun sets or goes down and your Flat Earth Biblical model doesn’t have the sun go under the disk.”
I recall Mike asking for a biblical verse that stated that the sun “sets” in the original language. Have you done that? I have been following pretty closely and I don’t recall you providing any such verse. I did see a list of verses you provided that says that in English however, in the original language I recall the meaning to be from a direction, i.e., west, rather than set.
If you did please reference the verse or verses again because I would like to see them as well. Thanks.
t8,
In your post you quoted Mike and responded:
Mike: If big bang, deep time, heliocentric cosmology is right, the Bible is wrong.
Boom! That is the deception. Get as many Christians believing this and then the world can say with confidence, that the Bible has been proven wrong. Sad part would be that the Bible isn’t saying what you are saying Mike. The Bible is way to brief on the subject and the Bible talks to us through the way we perceive reality and gives us a bigger picture from there. The detail you give is too much to draw from the Bible. Further, the Bible says the sun sets or goes down and your Flat Earth Biblical model doesn’t have the sun go under the disk. So nothing fits the Bible if you take it the literal way you do. Just understand that the Bible uses concepts, idioms, etc to describe things sometimes. It also says that all that is visible came from that which is invisible. Yes, the Universe that we see now was once invisible, but knoweldge increased Mike, just as the Bible said it would.
I do agree with your conclusion of Mike’s statement as far as the heliocentric cosmology goes and “big bang” in my opinion was more likely the begetting of the Son before creation, and deep time I hold out as a possibility but favor the instant mature earth stance. I appreciate that Mike wants to defend the Word of God, I think that he is pointing the finger the wrong way though. He has made the ally into an enemy. I do believe that satan is behind that deception and is laughing all the way.
I was wondering if I can persuade you to respond to the OP in the “2 Commandment…” topic. I would really appreciate for you to chime in on that with a direct answer.
Thanks ahead! LU
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
