-
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.
G
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.
Apparently, you have not thought this through well enough...
If you flattened out the curvature of the surface of the 'earth' in this image - the principle relative position of the 'earth' and 'moon' would still be the same. ( i.e. - The TOP-BOTTOM-BOTTOM-TOP positional view notated in the image would not be any different. The view angles - relative to the horizon - would be different, but the relative position - with regard to view - would be the same. )
The view of the 'moon' from two people facing each other would still be upside-down from each other.
And that is the most commonly observable fact about what you are trying to illustrate with this image.
"I smell an agenda..."
( otherwise, extreme ignorance of simple relational perspective )
M
SMH
Yessss, I have a secret plan. Muahahaha!
Oh. Wait. Yes, I think that's it. Maybe that's why they make me wear a helmet over here at the facility. You should probably bring back that "SMH".
Now it's my turn to be patronizing but...can't help myself: I am just laughing because...this is THEE (sp) most garbled gobbledy-gook, intentional double-, triple-speak nonsense ever - LOL! Wow. Job well done, Gary.
Anyhooo...
...let me explain this in simple, understandable terms that even a simpleton (apparently?) like myself can understand:
If the Moon is traveling/circling around above a flat surface (i.e. this alleged "flat earth")...at no time would it flip upside down.
OK, are we done here?
-------------
Unless, of course...you now want to introduce yet another cockamamie theory to add to your other cockamamie theories...and thus claim that when the Moon gets over to Australia it mysteriously flips upside down.
You make an odd reference to Australians and North Americans "facing each other". They do not need to "face each other". They can turn around and face the other way, if they wish - LOL. But on a globe, they would have no choice but to be 'upside down' from one another.
Anyway...I don't know how you thought that was bolstering your argument but...
...the fact remains...people standing in Australia would see the Moon 'right side up' exactly the same way North Americans would...your hilarious attempts at intentionally scrambled, garbled wording notwithstanding.
M
SMH
You'll need to slow down and explain more clearly...if that's what you actually want to do. I understood zero of what you said. It looked to me like it was on purpose. But...benefit of the doubt...I'll be here if you want to rephrase or something.
M
SMH
"I smell an agenda..."
...extreme ignorance...
"I smell an agenda..."
...extreme ignorance...
So here's another 'slam-dunk' regarding "flat earth" pseudo-theories (theories which are coming to us, compliments of the CIA, almost certainly)...and I'm pretty much expecting Gary to disappear from this thread after this one (but hey, I could be wrong):
We are told by these guys, the diameter of the Sun and Moon are "approximately 30 miles"...and that they travel along the equator.
Ah. I see.
OK so...Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost town in Alaska, is a full five thousand six hundred miles (5600 miles) from the equator.
Look below at this photo of the Moon taken IN Barrow, Alaska:
Barrow, Alaska -- LINK
Looking at that Moon...is that what a 30-mile diameter looks like from 5600 miles away?
Not in a billion, trillion years. "Flat-earth theorism" is a giant joke on the face of it. And Antichrist cabalists are laughing themselves sick behind closed doors.
And actually, since the Moon (according to "flat earth" pseudo-theories) is supposedly 3000 miles up in the air, that would mean it was actually even FURTHER away than just 5600 miles. It would be more like 7000 miles! Oh my goodness. Gary, Gary, Gary.
______
By the way, just to run the numbers for a little fun: 7000 miles is to 30 miles what 7000 feet is to 30 feet.
And then 700 feet to 3 feet. But if we double that back to a 1400/6 ratio...that's virtually the same as looking at a 6-3 tall man from about 500 yards distance...about the length of a par 5 golf hole. If you've ever played a par 5 on a golf course, or from military experience and/or hunting experience, know how small a man looks from 500 yards...they're tiny. Teensy tiny.
If the Moon were 7000 miles away and had a diameter of 30 miles...it would barely be more more than a dot.
G
Not in a billion, trillion years.
Why can we clearly see that much detail ( with the naked eye ) on something that is supposed to be that far away?
______
By the way, just to run the numbers for a little fun:
moon distance = 240,000 miles
moon diameter = 1,000 miles
earth diameter = 8,000 miles
( numbers rounded a bit for easy calculations )
240,000 / 1,000 => 2400 inches / 10 inches ( 200 feet / 10 inches )
The diameter of a basketball is 9.5 inches. Let's round it to 10 inches.
Using the same "logic" as your example, the moon should look like a basketball at 200 feet -- which is still a whole lot smaller than the moon in the above picture...
Can that much detail be clearly seen ( with the naked eye ) on a basketball 200 feet away?
The following illustrates the relative size and distance of the Earth and the Moon ( Ball Earth Theory ):
O............................................................ <----- period is a single pixel; letter 'O' is 9 tall and 8 wide
The distance between them is 239 pixels.
( Imagine what your size would be on the side of that letter 'O'. )
The angle of view from the top edge of the moon to the bottom edge of the moon would be ( at most ) 0.24 degree.
( quick-figured from 2 times the arctangent of half-diameter-of-the-moon divided by distance-to-the-moon )
Which means -- the moon would never be seen to be much larger than a quarter-degree in your field-of-vision.
Most of the light splotches in that picture are much larger than that.
To help this make more sense -- imagine looking at a basketball 200 feet down-range in that picture...
Last edited:
What about gravity,unless there is no such thing as gravity,and the Bible says God hangs the world upon nothing,so would not something have to hold it in to place,which would apply if it was moving,or not,something has to hold it in to place,and we know we are not floating aimlessly about.
There’s an interesting fact about mass:it attracts things to it.The force of attraction(gravity)between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them.Simply said,gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects.To find the center of mass,you have to examine the object.
Since a sphere has a consistent shape,no matter where on it you stand,you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you,so we experience gravity going downward,which does not affect our movement upon earth,and pushing us from side to side.The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center,and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain.That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle,not straight down like you usually experience.
Unless there is no such thing as gravity.
Which is why God would want us on a globe,for on a flat earth we would be pulled to the center of the earth,but on a globe,the gravity goes downward,which means we can accomplish things on earth,without veering off to the side being pulled towards the middle.
If the earth were flat,people would be walking at a slant,by being pulled towards the middle,and they would be going towards the middle unless there is something that will not give by the force of gravity,that can stop them from going towards the center,like we fall straight down until we are at the bottom of something that will not give,all loose things would be falling,so to speak,sideways towards the middle of the earth,unless there is something that will not give under the pressure of gravity that stop them.
On a sphere no matter where you stand,you have the same amount of sphere under you,so gravity goes downward.
There’s an interesting fact about mass:it attracts things to it.The force of attraction(gravity)between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them.Simply said,gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects.To find the center of mass,you have to examine the object.
Since a sphere has a consistent shape,no matter where on it you stand,you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you,so we experience gravity going downward,which does not affect our movement upon earth,and pushing us from side to side.The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center,and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain.That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle,not straight down like you usually experience.
Unless there is no such thing as gravity.
Which is why God would want us on a globe,for on a flat earth we would be pulled to the center of the earth,but on a globe,the gravity goes downward,which means we can accomplish things on earth,without veering off to the side being pulled towards the middle.
If the earth were flat,people would be walking at a slant,by being pulled towards the middle,and they would be going towards the middle unless there is something that will not give by the force of gravity,that can stop them from going towards the center,like we fall straight down until we are at the bottom of something that will not give,all loose things would be falling,so to speak,sideways towards the middle of the earth,unless there is something that will not give under the pressure of gravity that stop them.
On a sphere no matter where you stand,you have the same amount of sphere under you,so gravity goes downward.
G
All of this is 100% meaningless from a Flat Earth perspective. Gravity, as we have all been taught, does not exist in a Flat Earth perspective.
The center-of-gravity-at-the-north-pole-with-sideways-pull idea is nothing but a 'tactic' of Ball Earthers. ( It is nothing but 'BS'. It has no meaning whatsoever in a Flat Earth perspective. )
The center-of-gravity-at-the-north-pole-with-sideways-pull idea is nothing but a 'tactic' of Ball Earthers. ( It is nothing but 'BS'. It has no meaning whatsoever in a Flat Earth perspective. )
M
You're having a little too much fun. The diameter of the Moon is 2159 miles....not "1000 miles".
Which ever way you slice it..."flat-earth-ism" is absolutely and utterly unsalvageable just on this one point alone.
Yes, a 239K miles to 2159 miles ratio would still make for a relatively small Moon. But then again, truth be told, the Moon I see in the night sky is indeed, quite a bit smaller than what is seen in some of these photos (such as, admittedly, this Barrow photo).
But as I said...one thing is for sure-- "flat-earth-ism" is OUT of the running. There is NO WAY what we see visually has even the slightest prayer of matching up to the 700:3 ratio.
I would concede I scrambled out under the night sky to take a look at tonight's Moon, interested in taking a closer look at the conventional ratio...to confirm that it matches the reality one sees in the night sky. It should be (by my reckoning) the equivalent of a 10.5 foot orb from 398 yards. Twice the ratio of the "flat earth" Moon, by the way.
And so...I would also make the casual observation (admittedly very casual, very anecdotal) that half the diameter of this observable Moon does appear to be about the size of a man standing on a golf green, 500 yards away. I have to say...it's a very close match. I've played golf for 40 years.
But I also would concede the "flat earth" ratio would make for something a bit larger than my previous description..."not much larger than a dot"...but still waaay out of hope of matching up to visual reality.
Another thing to note is that this is an illuminated orb...and while that partially explains why it is easier to see some of the features...honestly, apart from binoculars I can only make out some darker splotches contrasted with lighter areas.
Of course, the other thing that clearly pulls the plug on flat-earth-ism...is that people in Ecuador (as an example) when the Moon is passing directly overhead...are allegedly 5,600 miles closer to this alleged 30 mile wide Moon...than Barrow, Alaska...and thus should see a Moon that should appear slightly over twice as large.
That isn't happening. Nor have folks at the North Pole or in Antarctica ever testified in a state of astonishment of having seen a Moon that is fully two and a half times smaller the Ecuadorian Moon...nor are there any such photos.
That alone is "Game Over" for flat-earth theory.
Bottom line: Flat-earth advocates (you) can NOT argue the conventional Moon stats/dimensions are 'unrealistic'...when the "flat earth" Moon is HALF the size!! At least conventional Moon dimensions have a fighting chance and...my initial (and admittedly amateur) "Par 5" observation confirms the Moon is very close in visual appearance to what one would expect from a 239,000:2,159 ratio.
Which ever way you slice it..."flat-earth-ism" is absolutely and utterly unsalvageable just on this one point alone.
Yes, a 239K miles to 2159 miles ratio would still make for a relatively small Moon. But then again, truth be told, the Moon I see in the night sky is indeed, quite a bit smaller than what is seen in some of these photos (such as, admittedly, this Barrow photo).
But as I said...one thing is for sure-- "flat-earth-ism" is OUT of the running. There is NO WAY what we see visually has even the slightest prayer of matching up to the 700:3 ratio.
I would concede I scrambled out under the night sky to take a look at tonight's Moon, interested in taking a closer look at the conventional ratio...to confirm that it matches the reality one sees in the night sky. It should be (by my reckoning) the equivalent of a 10.5 foot orb from 398 yards. Twice the ratio of the "flat earth" Moon, by the way.
And so...I would also make the casual observation (admittedly very casual, very anecdotal) that half the diameter of this observable Moon does appear to be about the size of a man standing on a golf green, 500 yards away. I have to say...it's a very close match. I've played golf for 40 years.
But I also would concede the "flat earth" ratio would make for something a bit larger than my previous description..."not much larger than a dot"...but still waaay out of hope of matching up to visual reality.
Another thing to note is that this is an illuminated orb...and while that partially explains why it is easier to see some of the features...honestly, apart from binoculars I can only make out some darker splotches contrasted with lighter areas.
Of course, the other thing that clearly pulls the plug on flat-earth-ism...is that people in Ecuador (as an example) when the Moon is passing directly overhead...are allegedly 5,600 miles closer to this alleged 30 mile wide Moon...than Barrow, Alaska...and thus should see a Moon that should appear slightly over twice as large.
That isn't happening. Nor have folks at the North Pole or in Antarctica ever testified in a state of astonishment of having seen a Moon that is fully two and a half times smaller the Ecuadorian Moon...nor are there any such photos.
That alone is "Game Over" for flat-earth theory.
Bottom line: Flat-earth advocates (you) can NOT argue the conventional Moon stats/dimensions are 'unrealistic'...when the "flat earth" Moon is HALF the size!! At least conventional Moon dimensions have a fighting chance and...my initial (and admittedly amateur) "Par 5" observation confirms the Moon is very close in visual appearance to what one would expect from a 239,000:2,159 ratio.
M
You're having a little too much fun. The diameter of the Moon is 2159 miles....not "1000 miles".
Which ever way you slice it..."flat-earth-ism" is absolutely and utterly unsalvageable just on this one point alone.
Yes, a 239K miles to 2159 miles ratio would still make for a relatively small Moon. But then again, truth be told, the Moon I see in the night sky is indeed, quite a bit smaller than what is seen in some of these photos (such as, admittedly, this Barrow photo).
But as I said...one thing is for sure-- "flat-earth-ism" is OUT of the running. There is NO WAY what we see visually has even the slightest prayer of matching up to the 700:3 ratio.
I would concede I scrambled out under the night sky to take a look at tonight's Moon, interested in taking a closer look at the conventional ratio...to confirm that it matches the reality one sees in the night sky. It should be (by my reckoning) the equivalent of a 10.5 foot orb from 398 yards. Twice the ratio of the "flat earth" Moon, by the way.
And so...I would also make the casual observation (admittedly very casual, very anecdotal) that half the diameter of this observable Moon does appear to be about the size of a man standing on a golf green, 500 yards away. I have to say...it's a very close match. I've played golf for 40 years.
But I also would concede the "flat earth" ratio would make for something a bit larger than my previous description..."not much larger than a dot"...but still waaay out of hope of matching up to visual reality.
Another thing to note is that this is an illuminated orb...and while that partially explains why it is easier to see some of the features...honestly, apart from binoculars I can only make out some darker splotches contrasted with lighter areas.
Of course, the other thing that clearly pulls the plug on flat-earth-ism...is that people in Ecuador (as an example) when the Moon is passing directly overhead...are allegedly 3400 miles closer to this alleged 30 mile wide Moon...than Barrow, Alaska...and thus should see a Moon that should appear slightly over twice as large.
That isn't happening. Nor have folks at the North Pole or in Antarctica ever testified in a state of astonishment of having seen a Moon that is fully two and a half times smaller the Ecuadorian Moon...nor are there any such photos.
That alone is "Game Over" for flat-earth theory.
Bottom line: Flat-earth advocates (you) can NOT argue the conventional Moon stats/dimensions are 'unrealistic'...when the "flat earth" Moon is HALF the size!! At least conventional Moon dimensions have a fighting chance and...my initial (and admittedly amateur) "Par 5" observation confirms the Moon is very close in visual appearance to what one would expect from a 239,000:2,159 ratio.
Which ever way you slice it..."flat-earth-ism" is absolutely and utterly unsalvageable just on this one point alone.
Yes, a 239K miles to 2159 miles ratio would still make for a relatively small Moon. But then again, truth be told, the Moon I see in the night sky is indeed, quite a bit smaller than what is seen in some of these photos (such as, admittedly, this Barrow photo).
But as I said...one thing is for sure-- "flat-earth-ism" is OUT of the running. There is NO WAY what we see visually has even the slightest prayer of matching up to the 700:3 ratio.
I would concede I scrambled out under the night sky to take a look at tonight's Moon, interested in taking a closer look at the conventional ratio...to confirm that it matches the reality one sees in the night sky. It should be (by my reckoning) the equivalent of a 10.5 foot orb from 398 yards. Twice the ratio of the "flat earth" Moon, by the way.
And so...I would also make the casual observation (admittedly very casual, very anecdotal) that half the diameter of this observable Moon does appear to be about the size of a man standing on a golf green, 500 yards away. I have to say...it's a very close match. I've played golf for 40 years.
But I also would concede the "flat earth" ratio would make for something a bit larger than my previous description..."not much larger than a dot"...but still waaay out of hope of matching up to visual reality.
Another thing to note is that this is an illuminated orb...and while that partially explains why it is easier to see some of the features...honestly, apart from binoculars I can only make out some darker splotches contrasted with lighter areas.
Of course, the other thing that clearly pulls the plug on flat-earth-ism...is that people in Ecuador (as an example) when the Moon is passing directly overhead...are allegedly 3400 miles closer to this alleged 30 mile wide Moon...than Barrow, Alaska...and thus should see a Moon that should appear slightly over twice as large.
That isn't happening. Nor have folks at the North Pole or in Antarctica ever testified in a state of astonishment of having seen a Moon that is fully two and a half times smaller the Ecuadorian Moon...nor are there any such photos.
That alone is "Game Over" for flat-earth theory.
Bottom line: Flat-earth advocates (you) can NOT argue the conventional Moon stats/dimensions are 'unrealistic'...when the "flat earth" Moon is HALF the size!! At least conventional Moon dimensions have a fighting chance and...my initial (and admittedly amateur) "Par 5" observation confirms the Moon is very close in visual appearance to what one would expect from a 239,000:2,159 ratio.
Last edited by a moderator:
I was told a theory by someone who wanted it to be true.
When I showed it relied on people being corrupt and evil who were obviously
good people I became the liar.
Their in lies the problem. We arguing and looking for the truth become the liars.
So you have to choose your friends or call all liars which probably means the conviction
is wrong.
When I showed it relied on people being corrupt and evil who were obviously
good people I became the liar.
Their in lies the problem. We arguing and looking for the truth become the liars.
So you have to choose your friends or call all liars which probably means the conviction
is wrong.
M
I didn't quite follow your comments here. I'd be interested in clarification!
But anyway...to boil this down some more:
The ratio according to 'conventional' and commonly accepted numbers is...that the Moon is at a 239,000 miles distance...and has a 2,159 mile diameter.
The ratio for "flat earth", specifically from Barrow, Alaska...is that the Moon is around 6,400 miles distant and with a 30 mile diameter.
If we convert 'miles' to 'yards' in order to get a better visual idea...that would be the following:
239 yards to 2.16 yards (6 feet 6 inches)...............for conventional numbers
213 yards to 1 yard (3 feet)..................................for "flat earth" numbers
So...the big question: Does the Moon we see in the night sky fit the description of a 6-6 man standing on a golf green, 239 yards away (the length of a fairly long Par 3...pardon my golf analogies)? It's close. Admittedly, from the standpoint of my strictly amateur, anecdotal outlook...the Moon would seem to be closer to a 150 yard / 6 foot 6 inch ratio. But I will have to step outdoors and do more evaluation.
But "flat earth" is out of the running, for sure. Conventional dimensions are ALREADY a tight fit from my layman's perspective...(in which I suspect I will discover my perception is a bit off). But "flat earth" is HALF that. It's off the table. It's a goner.
Add to that (and a hundred other things about "flat earth")...the problem of the "flat earth" Moon needing to be well over double the size (visually) from Ecuador...compared to Barrow, Alaska (not to mention..the North Pole and Antarctica)...which is not happening.
Don't know what you mean by "angle-of-view", by the way.
But anyway...to boil this down some more:
The ratio according to 'conventional' and commonly accepted numbers is...that the Moon is at a 239,000 miles distance...and has a 2,159 mile diameter.
The ratio for "flat earth", specifically from Barrow, Alaska...is that the Moon is around 6,400 miles distant and with a 30 mile diameter.
If we convert 'miles' to 'yards' in order to get a better visual idea...that would be the following:
239 yards to 2.16 yards (6 feet 6 inches)...............for conventional numbers
213 yards to 1 yard (3 feet)..................................for "flat earth" numbers
So...the big question: Does the Moon we see in the night sky fit the description of a 6-6 man standing on a golf green, 239 yards away (the length of a fairly long Par 3...pardon my golf analogies)? It's close. Admittedly, from the standpoint of my strictly amateur, anecdotal outlook...the Moon would seem to be closer to a 150 yard / 6 foot 6 inch ratio. But I will have to step outdoors and do more evaluation.
But "flat earth" is out of the running, for sure. Conventional dimensions are ALREADY a tight fit from my layman's perspective...(in which I suspect I will discover my perception is a bit off). But "flat earth" is HALF that. It's off the table. It's a goner.
Add to that (and a hundred other things about "flat earth")...the problem of the "flat earth" Moon needing to be well over double the size (visually) from Ecuador...compared to Barrow, Alaska (not to mention..the North Pole and Antarctica)...which is not happening.
Don't know what you mean by "angle-of-view", by the way.
Last edited by a moderator: