-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
OK, this is cearly CGI to me, but it's clearly reality to you, so we just have a difference of sight.
I believe the moon is concave and translucent, and you disproved the moon was an actual bowl. It's an object I have no clue what it is, but based on moon phases and that experiment I posted and the fact it's transparent, I will still say I believe it's a "Bowl" before I believe it's a sphere rock rotating at the same speed of it's orbit.
I don't want to talk about flat earth anymore!
I believe the moon is concave and translucent, and you disproved the moon was an actual bowl. It's an object I have no clue what it is, but based on moon phases and that experiment I posted and the fact it's transparent, I will still say I believe it's a "Bowl" before I believe it's a sphere rock rotating at the same speed of it's orbit.
I don't want to talk about flat earth anymore!
M
GaryA
"Globe Earthers -- please explain how the Earth instantly / suddenly "put the brakes on" - and, "came to a complete halt" - without destroying anything or killing anyone -- and then - [ about ] a day later - instantly / suddenly resumed to 1000+ MPH spinning - without destroying anything or killing anyone..."
( And don't come back with any CRAP about this being "figurative" or some such thing. This actually happened as the Bible tells it. )
"Do you believe what the Bible says?"
If the Bible says that "the sun stopped in the middle of the sky", then that means one of two things:
1) the sun stopped in the middle of the sky
2) the earth "put the brakes on" and "came to a complete halt" instantly / suddenly - and subsequently resumed instantly / suddenly. Which is more likely to have occurred?
( And don't come back with any CRAP about this being "figurative" or some such thing. This actually happened as the Bible tells it. )
"Do you believe what the Bible says?"
If the Bible says that "the sun stopped in the middle of the sky", then that means one of two things:
1) the sun stopped in the middle of the sky
2) the earth "put the brakes on" and "came to a complete halt" instantly / suddenly - and subsequently resumed instantly / suddenly. Which is more likely to have occurred?
If you can explain the actual mechanics...the actual 'how-to' of God's miracle in being able to stop the earth...then I'll explain all the questions about the gravitational issues involved in this miracle. Deal?
Bro...it was a MIRACLE...from top to bottom. God was able to stop the earth revolving AND prevent anyone from experiencing any adverse effects...because it was (wait for it)...a miracle.
Gary, my man. Just don't know about you, guy. The blind-spot in your "earth coming to a halt" argument...something has fundamentally gone wrong somewhere.
I don't want to be too harsh but..when you see some of posthuman's slam-dunkers (his post about the sun 5000 miles downrange from NYC is irrefutable) and when you see an earlier post below which illustrates the spherical shape of earth...with folks in Perth seeing the moon's features 'upside down' and folks in Seattle seeing the moon 'right side up'...
...and these guys like Gary and "pckts" come along and stare at the evidence...they blink a couple of times...and then begin blathering strange incomprehensible double-speak before disappearing into the mists...
...there's a fine line between "thinking outside the box" and just being plumb-crazy...albeit in a specifically limited manner. Kind of like the plumber who comes to your home by day and does a great repair job...then heads off to his "dress up like a baby" club, by night.
Mind you, I'm certainly not saying anyone here dresses up like a baby...but I think folks get my meaning.
Below: Here again, for Gary's viewing pleasure. We'll await, and unfortunately expect, more indecipherable double-speak gobbledy-gook responses:
Also, I was talking to my New Zealand friend just a couple of days ago by phone and brought up this 'flat earth' topic...and he said any number of his friends from there have noticed in their travels to North America...that the moon's features are "upside down" compared to what they see when they are in New Zealand.
Sure enough, I went on the Internet just last night and...there it was -- more irrefutable evidence for a globe:
The way this works is that on a globe, New Zealanders are standing 'upside down' in relation to North Americans and we North Americans are standing 'upside down' in relation to New Zealanders! See the graphic below:
On an alleged "flat earth" there is no way and no how that could ever be. You would NOT see the features of the moon right side up in North America...and then upside down in New Zealand.
That could ONLY happen on a globe. Again, these are commonly observable facts...apparently noticed by HUGE numbers of ordinary people. I had never given this a second thought. But now that the subject of flat earth has come up...the evidences for a sphere are bursting at the seams.
Sure enough, I went on the Internet just last night and...there it was -- more irrefutable evidence for a globe:
The way this works is that on a globe, New Zealanders are standing 'upside down' in relation to North Americans and we North Americans are standing 'upside down' in relation to New Zealanders! See the graphic below:
On an alleged "flat earth" there is no way and no how that could ever be. You would NOT see the features of the moon right side up in North America...and then upside down in New Zealand.
That could ONLY happen on a globe. Again, these are commonly observable facts...apparently noticed by HUGE numbers of ordinary people. I had never given this a second thought. But now that the subject of flat earth has come up...the evidences for a sphere are bursting at the seams.
M
Posthuman -- I have a few questions for you since you seemed to have delved more deeply into some of the mathematics and "perspective" issues.
First of all, without wanting to go through all 50 pages of this thread...what are the answers some of these flat-earth proponents have given...regarding why no one sees a "mirror image" of the moon if it is supposedly 'transparent' and if it is supposedly traveling roughly along the lines of the equator, and therefore should billions of people see its 'backside' and therefore should they theoretically see the moon's features backwards...i.e. a mirror image. How have they explained the fact no one has seen this?
OR...if they're asking us to believe the moon travels on a path pretty much smack up against the dome glass (or whatever these people would call it) and many thousands of miles "south" of the equator (therefore supposedly preventing folks from seeing the moon's backside)...isn't it impossible to think Alaskans or northern Europeans would ever see so much as a tiny speck of a moon?? Or no 'speck' at all?
It looks to be roughly a distance of 10 or 11 thousand miles...from the northern coast of Alaska to the "edge of the earth" on this (obviously concocted) flat earth map:
After all, they ask us to believe that as soon as the sun travels a number of thousand miles downrange on this alleged flat earth, that it turns into a tiny orb and then a speck and then disappears 'over the horizon'. So how do you think flat-earthers would explain Alaskans or northern Europeans ever catching anything but the most far off glimpse of the moon? Or am I calculating this wrong?
And then, add to that...what about locations on this "flat earth" where the moon is passing directly overhead (per the argument of some 'flat-earthers' that the moon travels roughly along the equator)...shouldn't those folks see a vastly larger moon than people in, say, Alaska?
But then, going back to the idea that the moon travels way out towards the "edge" of their flat earth...(again, so as to explain why no one sees the back side of the moon or a 'mirror image' of the moon)...
...shouldn't southern Australians and people at the southern tips of South America and Africa, therefore, see an absolutely gargantuan monstrous moon, many many times the size of what people in northern Alaska would see?
Then again, maybe these people haven't given ANY answers to a lot of this stuff!
---
My thing is...I have a couple of blogs and people are emailing me left and right and I'm trying to develop the best possible and well-thought-through arguments.
First of all, without wanting to go through all 50 pages of this thread...what are the answers some of these flat-earth proponents have given...regarding why no one sees a "mirror image" of the moon if it is supposedly 'transparent' and if it is supposedly traveling roughly along the lines of the equator, and therefore should billions of people see its 'backside' and therefore should they theoretically see the moon's features backwards...i.e. a mirror image. How have they explained the fact no one has seen this?
OR...if they're asking us to believe the moon travels on a path pretty much smack up against the dome glass (or whatever these people would call it) and many thousands of miles "south" of the equator (therefore supposedly preventing folks from seeing the moon's backside)...isn't it impossible to think Alaskans or northern Europeans would ever see so much as a tiny speck of a moon?? Or no 'speck' at all?
It looks to be roughly a distance of 10 or 11 thousand miles...from the northern coast of Alaska to the "edge of the earth" on this (obviously concocted) flat earth map:
After all, they ask us to believe that as soon as the sun travels a number of thousand miles downrange on this alleged flat earth, that it turns into a tiny orb and then a speck and then disappears 'over the horizon'. So how do you think flat-earthers would explain Alaskans or northern Europeans ever catching anything but the most far off glimpse of the moon? Or am I calculating this wrong?
And then, add to that...what about locations on this "flat earth" where the moon is passing directly overhead (per the argument of some 'flat-earthers' that the moon travels roughly along the equator)...shouldn't those folks see a vastly larger moon than people in, say, Alaska?
But then, going back to the idea that the moon travels way out towards the "edge" of their flat earth...(again, so as to explain why no one sees the back side of the moon or a 'mirror image' of the moon)...
...shouldn't southern Australians and people at the southern tips of South America and Africa, therefore, see an absolutely gargantuan monstrous moon, many many times the size of what people in northern Alaska would see?
Then again, maybe these people haven't given ANY answers to a lot of this stuff!
---
My thing is...I have a couple of blogs and people are emailing me left and right and I'm trying to develop the best possible and well-thought-through arguments.
P
I still believe it is concave because the moon is self-luminous and transparent. It also displays the same image to us at all times (I know the NASA explanation is that it rotates the same speed as it orbits)
NASA also tells us the Sun is not only 400x larger than the moon, but this same proportionate distance 400x further from the earth so that they appear the same size. A flat earther just believes they are the same size.
What you showed me was that the moon was not an actual concave bowl that reflected the sun's light directly exactly like a bowl to display the phase. I never claimed and I do not believe this. I believe it is a self-luminous transparent object and I have no idea how or to what degree the sun's light are involved in the phases.
Since it's transparent it may not actually be shaped concave, but reflects light due to the barrier being permeable as if it was concave. I do not have all the answers, I just know CGI and who the liars are.
NASA also tells us the Sun is not only 400x larger than the moon, but this same proportionate distance 400x further from the earth so that they appear the same size. A flat earther just believes they are the same size.
What you showed me was that the moon was not an actual concave bowl that reflected the sun's light directly exactly like a bowl to display the phase. I never claimed and I do not believe this. I believe it is a self-luminous transparent object and I have no idea how or to what degree the sun's light are involved in the phases.
Since it's transparent it may not actually be shaped concave, but reflects light due to the barrier being permeable as if it was concave. I do not have all the answers, I just know CGI and who the liars are.
M
Feel free to jump on my questions in post #944. Tell me how you would explain some of those thungs.
I was interested in posthuman's comments...but apparently he/she has become too busy for now.
And while you're at it...I would ask you: Is this "moon as a disc" (or "shallow bowl" or whatever) idea your unique theory...or have you seen this discussed by other flat-earthers? And if so...how would you explain that no one on earth has ever seen nor been able to photograph the moon from such an angle...such that the "disc"/"shallow bowl" structure becomes visible and apparent?
In other words, when we see a Frisbee from a top view, it looks like a circle. But from any other angle, the "disc" structure immediately begins to become apparent. How would you explain that no one has ever seen a "side view" of the moon? How come the whole world always only sees a perfect "front view" of the moon?
I was interested in posthuman's comments...but apparently he/she has become too busy for now.
And while you're at it...I would ask you: Is this "moon as a disc" (or "shallow bowl" or whatever) idea your unique theory...or have you seen this discussed by other flat-earthers? And if so...how would you explain that no one on earth has ever seen nor been able to photograph the moon from such an angle...such that the "disc"/"shallow bowl" structure becomes visible and apparent?
In other words, when we see a Frisbee from a top view, it looks like a circle. But from any other angle, the "disc" structure immediately begins to become apparent. How would you explain that no one has ever seen a "side view" of the moon? How come the whole world always only sees a perfect "front view" of the moon?
Great video. Digital pictures suffer pixalation when the signal goes bad.
They are not cleaning up the glitches because it is just a real feed and it
does not matter, it is what happens for real.
Zero G in planes is only for very short times frames, and ISS transmissions
have gone on much longer than a plane falling out of the sky would need.
So again you are trying to make something out of nothing.
They are not cleaning up the glitches because it is just a real feed and it
does not matter, it is what happens for real.
Zero G in planes is only for very short times frames, and ISS transmissions
have gone on much longer than a plane falling out of the sky would need.
So again you are trying to make something out of nothing.
The video made me thing of the gospels. There are glitches in the gospels
as to what order things happened in and where, and who was present.
Rather than take away from the telling it adds the personal testimony
aspect, different people expressing there memories and their interests.
If it was on big made up story they would all match because that is more
convincing. When the story is real, what you want to convey is the differences
of perspective because this adds to the event and its telling, so glitches rather
than destroying a story can prove its authentic.
as to what order things happened in and where, and who was present.
Rather than take away from the telling it adds the personal testimony
aspect, different people expressing there memories and their interests.
If it was on big made up story they would all match because that is more
convincing. When the story is real, what you want to convey is the differences
of perspective because this adds to the event and its telling, so glitches rather
than destroying a story can prove its authentic.
P
"digitial pixalation" is only an excuse for one of the examples presented in the video, I guess this is your argument for the microphone being passed.
Why did the astronaut's entire body fade away as he passed the corner at the :30 second mark?
If you want to talk about the video we can, but acknowledge the entire thing so we can have a real discussion about it.
Why did the astronaut's entire body fade away as he passed the corner at the :30 second mark?
If you want to talk about the video we can, but acknowledge the entire thing so we can have a real discussion about it.
I have to say, I do not know enough about the transmission technology they
are using and its strengths and weaknesses.
Let me put this whole idea on a different footing.
The rocket ship builder SpaceX is a private venture with ambitions to be a private
firm building launch vehicals at a lower cost than Nasa etc. with a $12 billion valuation.
Now no one invests this much capital and risk based on the flat earth model.
So the whole of our society, the stock market, TV, education, researchers do not
agree with you. So unfortunately it is a joke and you are just deluding yourself
about something that is provable with no sense of hesitancy.
are using and its strengths and weaknesses.
Let me put this whole idea on a different footing.
The rocket ship builder SpaceX is a private venture with ambitions to be a private
firm building launch vehicals at a lower cost than Nasa etc. with a $12 billion valuation.
Now no one invests this much capital and risk based on the flat earth model.
So the whole of our society, the stock market, TV, education, researchers do not
agree with you. So unfortunately it is a joke and you are just deluding yourself
about something that is provable with no sense of hesitancy.