-
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.
Look at this again. It's really difficult to understand. Start at each example at it's edge, than imagine a ship moving away from you either on the hill going up (like a ball), or going down, like a concave model would indicate.
Once you get it, there is no question, at all. It's very difficult to understand.
Maybe an easier way to see it, is with a spoon.
A spoon when your eating soup would be like a concave earth. Mark two points on a spoon and try to imagine a view point.
Now turn the spoon upside down, this would be like a convex earth (living on the outside of the earth), you will lose sight of the top of a sail boat.
The distance of the two points will have to be small, sense this would be a representation of a small distance of the earth.
A spoon when your eating soup would be like a concave earth. Mark two points on a spoon and try to imagine a view point.
Now turn the spoon upside down, this would be like a convex earth (living on the outside of the earth), you will lose sight of the top of a sail boat.
The distance of the two points will have to be small, sense this would be a representation of a small distance of the earth.
Second thought, not sure you would lose sight of the sail in convex model, but you WOULDN'T lose sight of the bottom of the ship, since it's going up, not unless, both the top and bottom of ship is out of sight. Like I said, it's complicated, but like to someone to question it, so it can help think it through.
Sail boat debunks convex model..
Victory for concave model with sail boat.
Methinks you have reversed "concave" and "convex".
Use a mixing bowl to illustrate. On the inside of the bowl (concave surface), every other point is within sight of any point. On the outside (convex surface), most other points are out of sight from any particular point. The latter is consistent with our observations of Earth; the former is not. A sailboat debunks the concave model.
Use a mixing bowl to illustrate. On the inside of the bowl (concave surface), every other point is within sight of any point. On the outside (convex surface), most other points are out of sight from any particular point. The latter is consistent with our observations of Earth; the former is not. A sailboat debunks the concave model.
-
1
- Show all
Your forgetting that water will obstruct the view, like it did in the sail boat.
Above would be the convex earth, living on the outside of a sphere. Notice if someone's view was from behind the car, he could still see the bottom of the car?
Now imagine the view point was from the car looking at a sail boat in front of the car, the view from the bottom would be blocked. This would support the concave model, like the sail boat video.
Pretty sure satellite dishes are pointed to a satellite, not a cell tower, but maybe some other types of dishes are pointed at cell towers, not truly an expert on all things satellite.
This was a quick google search answer..
Are satellites stationary?
All geostationary satellites are geosynchronous. ... The “stationary” part of geostationary describes how a satellite in this orbit remains fixed with respect to an observer on the ground. This is an ideal orbit for communications satellites, since ground-based antennas can remain pointed at the same spot in the sky.Jan. 17, 2014
I think the earth is stationary, so satellite dishes would have to be stationary also, not unless you believe that the earth is moving and the satellites are directly spinning at the same rate as the earth. Once again, I think the earth is stationary, so the second option isn't really a position to consider for me.
By the way, you thumbs down my post on asking for scripture to back up the original posters premise, that the flat earth is backed by scripture. Please direct me to a post that includes scripture to back up this lame brain idea that he/she had about a flat earth. Sorry, saying the earth is flat is crazy talk.
To prove it's not crazy talk, where is the scripture, that claims there is? Or is this another lame attempt to give flat earth theory some credibility?!?!
My opinion is the flat earth theory is a really bad joke, that has gone to far. If this is some sort of gag, it's not funny, just for the record; It's stupid and I'm calling it, as I see it.
This was a quick google search answer..
Are satellites stationary?
All geostationary satellites are geosynchronous. ... The “stationary” part of geostationary describes how a satellite in this orbit remains fixed with respect to an observer on the ground. This is an ideal orbit for communications satellites, since ground-based antennas can remain pointed at the same spot in the sky.Jan. 17, 2014
I think the earth is stationary, so satellite dishes would have to be stationary also, not unless you believe that the earth is moving and the satellites are directly spinning at the same rate as the earth. Once again, I think the earth is stationary, so the second option isn't really a position to consider for me.
By the way, you thumbs down my post on asking for scripture to back up the original posters premise, that the flat earth is backed by scripture. Please direct me to a post that includes scripture to back up this lame brain idea that he/she had about a flat earth. Sorry, saying the earth is flat is crazy talk.
To prove it's not crazy talk, where is the scripture, that claims there is? Or is this another lame attempt to give flat earth theory some credibility?!?!
My opinion is the flat earth theory is a really bad joke, that has gone to far. If this is some sort of gag, it's not funny, just for the record; It's stupid and I'm calling it, as I see it.
How to prove beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt that the Earth is flat, and not a sphere...
Position, somewhere on the Equator, a stationary reference "beacon" that sends out a signal in all directions -- or, at least - either East or West - with an angular range from North to South ( i.e. - 180 degrees with East / West in center - albeit, only the North 90 degrees will be significant ).
Position, on a ship / airplane, a directional receiver - such that, it can be determined with sufficient accuracy the angle ( relative to the Equator - or, directly behind ship / airplane ) the reference beacon is being detected.
Using a directional transmitter-receiver at both points would be even better.
Make sure that the signal - of whatever type - is of sufficient strength to reach a very long distance - and cannot be "blocked" by anything that might happen to come between the reference beacon and the ship / airplane.
As the ship / airplane moves away from the beacon, while staying on the equator:
~ If the Earth is a sphere, the signal will be lost soon enough because of the curvature of the earth; however, the angle from reference will never waiver from 0 degrees -- the beacon will always be directly behind the ship / airplane.
~ If the Earth is flat, the signal will be sustained for whatever distance it is capable of being detected; and, the detection angle will increase with the distance between the reference beacon and the ship / airplane.
Why? Because the ship / airplane will actually be following a circular path over the face of the Earth.
This will only work on the Equator - because, from a perspective regarding the angular part of the above suggested experiment - it is the only lattitude that is supposed to be a continual straight line all the way around the globe. And, that is why - if the results of the latter case are obtained - the Earth cannot possibly be a sphere.
Position, somewhere on the Equator, a stationary reference "beacon" that sends out a signal in all directions -- or, at least - either East or West - with an angular range from North to South ( i.e. - 180 degrees with East / West in center - albeit, only the North 90 degrees will be significant ).
Position, on a ship / airplane, a directional receiver - such that, it can be determined with sufficient accuracy the angle ( relative to the Equator - or, directly behind ship / airplane ) the reference beacon is being detected.
Using a directional transmitter-receiver at both points would be even better.
Make sure that the signal - of whatever type - is of sufficient strength to reach a very long distance - and cannot be "blocked" by anything that might happen to come between the reference beacon and the ship / airplane.
As the ship / airplane moves away from the beacon, while staying on the equator:
~ If the Earth is a sphere, the signal will be lost soon enough because of the curvature of the earth; however, the angle from reference will never waiver from 0 degrees -- the beacon will always be directly behind the ship / airplane.
~ If the Earth is flat, the signal will be sustained for whatever distance it is capable of being detected; and, the detection angle will increase with the distance between the reference beacon and the ship / airplane.
Why? Because the ship / airplane will actually be following a circular path over the face of the Earth.
This will only work on the Equator - because, from a perspective regarding the angular part of the above suggested experiment - it is the only lattitude that is supposed to be a continual straight line all the way around the globe. And, that is why - if the results of the latter case are obtained - the Earth cannot possibly be a sphere.
