-
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.
when reality does not match your personal interpretation of scripture, it's not reality that's wrong, and it's not scripture that's wrong: it's your understanding that is at fault.
this is not true.
you will point me to an amateur on youtube, and if you really want, i'll pick apart the video and explain what's wrong with their testing procedure and how the equipment they use and what they point it at gives them the readings they get. make a new thread; that's not the subject of this one.
point me at the test you want to show me.
previously addressed, anyway. everywhere on the surface of a spherical planet is "locally level"
besides - you guys have this false description of optics that says light asymmetrically bends downward across distance, which is how you try to make sunsets and sunrises workable. so a laser-level would be affected by the same false optics, and if it indeed measures level, you've just destroyed your own argument for how the sun moon & stars can appear to rise & set.
gravity isn't what keeps a wet tennis ball, wet. surface tension of water & electrostatic forces in part keep water adhered to the fuzz on one. the ratio of the mass of a tennis ball to a water drop is nowhere near that of the whole earth and her atmosphere. the total weight of the atmosphere is about one millionth of the weight of the earth's land mass. if you want to accurately, you need to match that ratio, and study it in the absence of earth's gravity and in the absence of frictional forces.
a tennis ball is about 60 grams
a water drop is about 0.05 grams
one millionth of 60 grams is 0.00006 grams
the earth spins at one revolution per 24 hours. a single point on earth travels the diameter of the earth in 24 hours.
you want to match that with the tennis ball's angular speed:
the circumference of the earth is ~ 4 billion cm
the circumference of a tennis ball is ~ 21 cm
the earth spins around 167,000,000 cm per hour
so you want to spin the tennis ball at 1.67e[SUP]8[/SUP] * (21/4e[SUP]9[/SUP]) = 0.87675 cm per hour in order to properly scale the model.
so, you need to divide a single water drop into 1,000 parts
take 1/1000 of a single water drop and coat a tennis ball with it evenly
put the tennis ball & water in a vacuum chamber - no other air around it
take this whole apparatus and remove outside gravitational force from it: either take it into outer space or perform your test in an airplane while it is diving in free-fall
spin the tennis ball with the 1/1000 of a single drop of water evenly coating it at about 0.9 cm/hr - so it makes one full rotation in one day.
do this, and get back to me with whether the minuscule amount of water on the very slowly spinning ball in near-total vacuum in the absence of outside gravitational force "flies off"
simply put, spinning a tennis ball with a whole lot more water on it and a much faster rate in thick atmosphere and in the earth's giant gravitational field is totally inaccurate model.
yes, centripetal forces on earth exist. no, you're not modeling them right.
we don't feel velocity; we only feel acceleration, and the earth is in space, "suspended on nothing" ((another Biblical term)) - there is no "air" around the earth for us to 'push against' while we spin, so there is no friction to 'blow things off the surface' -- all this stuff has been explained many many times even in this thread alone.
your youtube teachers don't give you all the facts, and don't model things accurately. they give you half-truths, outright lies and carefully avoid mentioning a whole lot of information. they carefully craft arguments in order to deceive you, leaving out a whole lot of relevant details and literally lying about some others.
do the math, actually do it, with all the data, the right data, and take into account all the relevant variables, and you literally have zero arguments.
this is not true.
you will point me to an amateur on youtube, and if you really want, i'll pick apart the video and explain what's wrong with their testing procedure and how the equipment they use and what they point it at gives them the readings they get. make a new thread; that's not the subject of this one.
point me at the test you want to show me.
previously addressed, anyway. everywhere on the surface of a spherical planet is "locally level"
besides - you guys have this false description of optics that says light asymmetrically bends downward across distance, which is how you try to make sunsets and sunrises workable. so a laser-level would be affected by the same false optics, and if it indeed measures level, you've just destroyed your own argument for how the sun moon & stars can appear to rise & set.
gravity isn't what keeps a wet tennis ball, wet. surface tension of water & electrostatic forces in part keep water adhered to the fuzz on one. the ratio of the mass of a tennis ball to a water drop is nowhere near that of the whole earth and her atmosphere. the total weight of the atmosphere is about one millionth of the weight of the earth's land mass. if you want to accurately, you need to match that ratio, and study it in the absence of earth's gravity and in the absence of frictional forces.
a tennis ball is about 60 grams
a water drop is about 0.05 grams
one millionth of 60 grams is 0.00006 grams
the earth spins at one revolution per 24 hours. a single point on earth travels the diameter of the earth in 24 hours.
you want to match that with the tennis ball's angular speed:
the circumference of the earth is ~ 4 billion cm
the circumference of a tennis ball is ~ 21 cm
the earth spins around 167,000,000 cm per hour
so you want to spin the tennis ball at 1.67e[SUP]8[/SUP] * (21/4e[SUP]9[/SUP]) = 0.87675 cm per hour in order to properly scale the model.
so, you need to divide a single water drop into 1,000 parts
take 1/1000 of a single water drop and coat a tennis ball with it evenly
put the tennis ball & water in a vacuum chamber - no other air around it
take this whole apparatus and remove outside gravitational force from it: either take it into outer space or perform your test in an airplane while it is diving in free-fall
spin the tennis ball with the 1/1000 of a single drop of water evenly coating it at about 0.9 cm/hr - so it makes one full rotation in one day.
do this, and get back to me with whether the minuscule amount of water on the very slowly spinning ball in near-total vacuum in the absence of outside gravitational force "flies off"
simply put, spinning a tennis ball with a whole lot more water on it and a much faster rate in thick atmosphere and in the earth's giant gravitational field is totally inaccurate model.
yes, centripetal forces on earth exist. no, you're not modeling them right.
we don't feel velocity; we only feel acceleration, and the earth is in space, "suspended on nothing" ((another Biblical term)) - there is no "air" around the earth for us to 'push against' while we spin, so there is no friction to 'blow things off the surface' -- all this stuff has been explained many many times even in this thread alone.
your youtube teachers don't give you all the facts, and don't model things accurately. they give you half-truths, outright lies and carefully avoid mentioning a whole lot of information. they carefully craft arguments in order to deceive you, leaving out a whole lot of relevant details and literally lying about some others.
do the math, actually do it, with all the data, the right data, and take into account all the relevant variables, and you literally have zero arguments.
B
I intend on trying my own experiments. I'll be getting high powered viewers, and I am going on my friend's boat to look at the horizon after another boat disappears in the horizon to see if I can get it to reappear using the viewers. I intend on testing the moon's light with very sensitive temp reading gage.
If the moon reflects light, it will be warmer than the shade it produces. As for the tennis ball, that is going to be hard to test, but you are saying the vacuum around the earth is why planes can land without crashing; otherwise, it would crash and helicopters should just be able to hover over the earth and end up in another country as the world turns 1000 miles per hour.
As for the Bible, it is what is explicitly stated not my interpretation. God stop the sun from moving for a time not the earth that is why we have a leap year. He says to the ends of the earth and that it has boundaries and edges and it doesn't move. He said the circle of the earth not ball for sphere. Water level test show no curvature ; so, the truth is out there, both the round earth and the circle earth have good arguments, so, I have to do my own research.
If the moon reflects light, it will be warmer than the shade it produces. As for the tennis ball, that is going to be hard to test, but you are saying the vacuum around the earth is why planes can land without crashing; otherwise, it would crash and helicopters should just be able to hover over the earth and end up in another country as the world turns 1000 miles per hour.
As for the Bible, it is what is explicitly stated not my interpretation. God stop the sun from moving for a time not the earth that is why we have a leap year. He says to the ends of the earth and that it has boundaries and edges and it doesn't move. He said the circle of the earth not ball for sphere. Water level test show no curvature ; so, the truth is out there, both the round earth and the circle earth have good arguments, so, I have to do my own research.
B
I don't believe everything on youtube, but some arguments are compelling to me, and I know governments are corrupt and hides things from the people. There are pacts made about Antarctica. Let's just say I am very skeptical about all I hear, see and read, and I feel safer trusting the word by faith more.
B
Is a good idea to do ones own research. II tend to think towards the ball earth but with a different viewpoint to what is generally accepted in science. For me it is easy to see that things are not the way we have been taught.
I've learned to always keep it simple. Simple theory works.
I've learned to always keep it simple. Simple theory works.
in Acts 27:23 Paul says an angel "stood" in front of him.
Paul was at that time on a boat which was sailing across the Adriatic.
was the angel, whose position is described as being "fixed" standing still relative to the earth as the boat passed by, or was he standing still relative to Paul and the boat, so that as measured by someone on the shore, the angel was travelling in the same direction with the same speed as the boat?
IOW is motion relative, and does the Bible speak of motion in terms that are relative to the observer?
Paul was at that time on a boat which was sailing across the Adriatic.
was the angel, whose position is described as being "fixed" standing still relative to the earth as the boat passed by, or was he standing still relative to Paul and the boat, so that as measured by someone on the shore, the angel was travelling in the same direction with the same speed as the boat?
IOW is motion relative, and does the Bible speak of motion in terms that are relative to the observer?
C
It is clear that something is moving. I personally believe all creation turns round the earth. If it wasn't for the internet I would not have thought about certain things, so I'm glad for the many theories and concepts and amateur film footage of weather balloons etc... It really has had me thinking! I must say that I've enjoyed the research and letting my mind consider what is possible and what I see etc. I've looked into many concepts.. Even aliens and flying saucers etc... Haha. No better way to disguise various governments experimental aircraft! Seen a few UFO's myself and each one I now know their origins... Mans inventiveness! From actual moving aircraft to holographic fun like the orange glowing balls! Life is never dull!
i am also quite tired of the BS.
yet here is the same BS again.
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/index.html
as someone else recently remarked in another place, it is quite ironic that you lot post actual cartoons of a tortilla-shaped earth, while there are literally millions of actual verifiable satellite images in public circulation which you ignore, and then, lying, say don't exist.
yet here is the same BS again.
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/index.html
as someone else recently remarked in another place, it is quite ironic that you lot post actual cartoons of a tortilla-shaped earth, while there are literally millions of actual verifiable satellite images in public circulation which you ignore, and then, lying, say don't exist.
did some of your research for you.
Lake Balaton laser experiment is thoroughly discredited here:
https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balaton-laser-experiment-to-determine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/
Bedford level experiment described here, in which Rowbotham's methods thoroughly discredited and in which Wallace found curvature consistent with spherical earth model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
B
you'll forgive me if that has not been apparent, since you neither appear very skeptical at all about some very dubious sources which have been exhaustively proven to be false witnesses, nor some very outlandish & contradictory private interpretations of scripture.
God laid the foundation of the earth a globe doesn't have foundations. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved but you are telling me it spins a 1000 miles per hour as it travels 66,000 miles p/h around the sun that is 93,000,000 million miles from the earth for which there is no proof.
God set the boundaries of the earth Ps 74:17; a globe doesn't have borders or boundaries. God takes the earth by its edges Job 38: 13. God spread the earth and stretched the heavens (Dome) over the circle of the earth. When Jesus comes back every eye will see Him which is not possible on a ball. Mat. 24 Is it?
The tree visible to the ends of the earth and the devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world not possible on a globe. There are many more verses, but I cannot find one to support a ball in any of the Scriptures. I am not skeptical of the Scriptures, but there are good arguments on both sides, and I am frustrated, because I cannot prove you wrong or the flat earthers wrong.
All I have to go on are Scriptures that I don't need to interrupt. The Hebrew has terms to describe a ball or sphere but the term chosen was a circle; so, go figure. Your post just add confusion to me about what I should think. The Scripture says the earth is stable and cannot be moved, but a heliocentric system involves lots of movement. 1 Samuel 2: 8.
I don't know how you can be so sure when we know NASA is given well over 18 billion dollars to promote their heliocentric system with satellite photos that many doubt are real. We know they want to hide God too. I cannot prove NASA or you wrong or the geocentric system; so, I remain unsure, but I'll be doing my continual search for truth on this. That is all I want. I am not looking to argue with you about it, but I do find you view interesting. You can think me stupid and a liar if you want, but that doesn't change what is written in Scripture. I have a choice believe the Bible or man. Right now I'd rather err on the side of the Bible.
Blessing to you
Last edited by a moderator:
contrary to a popular mythology built up on demonstrable lies, the Church has never believed the earth is flat. the RCC's position at one time was geocentric, yes, not on the basis of any evidence, but on the basis of mankind thinking they are the most important thing in the universe. but not even the RCC in the dark ages ever subscribed to a pancake planet.
the following is copy-pasted from an atheist's blog
http://strangenotions.com/did-the-church-teach-the-earth-was-flat/
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
When I was young I was taught in school that Christians believed the Earth was flat. In this view, it was not u
ntil Christopher Columbus’ historic journey to the “New World” that the Church became forced to accept this as fact and do away with its false belief. The idea that Christians believed in a flat Earth has been taught in school textbooks, short films, and is believed by many even today.
This notion of history stuck with me through my years as an atheist, during which I'd often refer to Christians as “Flat-Earthers.” I threw the term around in online discussion forums, and ironically some non-Christians have since used it in reference to me.
The whole question of whether the Church taught a flat-earth flared up again recently when I spotted a popular Internet meme (pictured above). It's been shared thousands of times on Facebook, and its quote supposedly derives from the famous Portuguese explorer, Ferdinand Magellan:
Of course, the quote often appears without any citation to its source. And for good reason: There isn't any.
The quote can be traced back to an essay titled Individuality by the famous American political leader and defender of agnosticism, Robert G. Ingersoll. There he writes:
Ingersoll is not the only famous American political leader to appeal to this bogus belief. Speaking to a crowd in Washington in 2012, President Barack Obama charged Republicans with dismissing alternative energy sources by comparing them to those who thought Columbus should not set sail:
In all fairness to President Obama, conservative television personality Glen Beck repeated the same historical blunder on his show just a year earlier. Beck managed to one-up the President in the myth department by inserting Galileo into the story.
The idea that Columbus sailed to the “New World” against the wisdom of his day is a complete myth, if a very persistent one. Greek astronomers were aware almost 300 years before the time of Christ that the Earth was round. What they were unsure of was the circumference of the planet.
There are only a handful of early Christian writers (mostly from the areas near Syria) that historians can point to as examples as those believing in a flat earth, but certainly this belief was never a test of Christian orthodoxy, and definitely not a doctrine of the Church at large. It was simply the opinion of a small minority—medieval and later Christians did not believe or teach this.
So then where did this myth actually come from? The earliest source I've been able to pinpoint is Washington Irving (author of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow) in his four-volume series titled A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. This work is a mixture of fact and fiction. There is a scene depicted in the book where shadowy Catholic clergymen warn Columbus that he might sail off the end of the Earth. This, of course, is not supported by any real historical data, but it nevertheless provides good fodder for Internet memes.
the following is copy-pasted from an atheist's blog
http://strangenotions.com/did-the-church-teach-the-earth-was-flat/
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
When I was young I was taught in school that Christians believed the Earth was flat. In this view, it was not u
ntil Christopher Columbus’ historic journey to the “New World” that the Church became forced to accept this as fact and do away with its false belief. The idea that Christians believed in a flat Earth has been taught in school textbooks, short films, and is believed by many even today.
This notion of history stuck with me through my years as an atheist, during which I'd often refer to Christians as “Flat-Earthers.” I threw the term around in online discussion forums, and ironically some non-Christians have since used it in reference to me.
The whole question of whether the Church taught a flat-earth flared up again recently when I spotted a popular Internet meme (pictured above). It's been shared thousands of times on Facebook, and its quote supposedly derives from the famous Portuguese explorer, Ferdinand Magellan:
"The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow of the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
Of course, the quote often appears without any citation to its source. And for good reason: There isn't any.
The quote can be traced back to an essay titled Individuality by the famous American political leader and defender of agnosticism, Robert G. Ingersoll. There he writes:
"It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions—some one who had the grandeur to say his say. I believe it was Magellan who said,"The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church." On the prow of his ship were disobedience, defiance, scorn, and success."
Ingersoll is not the only famous American political leader to appeal to this bogus belief. Speaking to a crowd in Washington in 2012, President Barack Obama charged Republicans with dismissing alternative energy sources by comparing them to those who thought Columbus should not set sail:
"Here’s the sad thing. Lately we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians—a lot of the folks who are running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed—they’ve been talking down new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future.
We’ve heard this kind of thinking before. Some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail—they must have been founding members of the Flat-Earth Society. They would not have believed that the world was round."
We’ve heard this kind of thinking before. Some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail—they must have been founding members of the Flat-Earth Society. They would not have believed that the world was round."
In all fairness to President Obama, conservative television personality Glen Beck repeated the same historical blunder on his show just a year earlier. Beck managed to one-up the President in the myth department by inserting Galileo into the story.
The idea that Columbus sailed to the “New World” against the wisdom of his day is a complete myth, if a very persistent one. Greek astronomers were aware almost 300 years before the time of Christ that the Earth was round. What they were unsure of was the circumference of the planet.
There are only a handful of early Christian writers (mostly from the areas near Syria) that historians can point to as examples as those believing in a flat earth, but certainly this belief was never a test of Christian orthodoxy, and definitely not a doctrine of the Church at large. It was simply the opinion of a small minority—medieval and later Christians did not believe or teach this.
So then where did this myth actually come from? The earliest source I've been able to pinpoint is Washington Irving (author of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow) in his four-volume series titled A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. This work is a mixture of fact and fiction. There is a scene depicted in the book where shadowy Catholic clergymen warn Columbus that he might sail off the end of the Earth. This, of course, is not supported by any real historical data, but it nevertheless provides good fodder for Internet memes.
B
B
The Milky way is so beautiful, lit up and very bright, and we are supposedly in the midst of this huge galaxy; so, this begs the question, why can't we see some of it; for instance, why can't we see the inner or outer bands? Now with NASA's photos of men on the moon and others that show the earth as a ball from space, why don't we see the Milky Way in part at least? All we see is black all around the earth as if it were photo shopped in there.
Why are NASA's photos of the earth inconsistent; for instance, some globes show America and other continents different sizes and shapes at different times of the year? Why was the US flag waving on the moon where there is no atmosphere, and why wasn't there a crater blast below the rocket engine on the moon? How did the men make it past the Van Allen radiation belt if there is one? Why when we see NASA send rockets up in space they don't go straight up but turn away from space almost parallel with the earth??????????????????
Why are NASA's photos of the earth inconsistent; for instance, some globes show America and other continents different sizes and shapes at different times of the year? Why was the US flag waving on the moon where there is no atmosphere, and why wasn't there a crater blast below the rocket engine on the moon? How did the men make it past the Van Allen radiation belt if there is one? Why when we see NASA send rockets up in space they don't go straight up but turn away from space almost parallel with the earth??????????????????
Last edited by a moderator:
actually this one supports a spherical earth.
you also confessed that He stretched out the heavens - the "cosmos" - have you ever thought, "in what direction?"
space is not 2-d. it has height, breadth and depth. your fritter model is only in two dimensions; you're already breaking into a third in order to have a "high mountain."
the stretching out of the universe is actually one of the most amazing things mankind has discovered by observing the sky - you have heard of Hubble's law? - and what is more amazing is that only one book, thousands of years old, declares that the universe has been stretched out, thousands of years before mankind became clever enough to discover that yes, it is true. expansion.
the universe has been stretched out, and not like it was a bedsheet, stretched in only 2-d. the universe is not 2-d, it's got at least 3 dimensions, and it has expanded ((been stretched out)) in every direction.
what does a point look like when it is stretched out in three dimensions? what's the shape of something that has been expanded in every direction simultaneously? ((hint: not a frisbee))
the heavens, even the heavens of the heavens cannot contain God. He has stretched it out in every direction. He is not to your left, or only to your right - He is all around you, pulling. He doesn't take hold of only two sides of a two dimensional universe and make it wider in one direction. He holds all of it, from every direction. does this action create a coin-shape? or a ball?
if He can pull from every direction, then does He look down from only one direction? how does the Bible define "up" and "above" ? heaven, according to how God uses the word, is not just an elevation over cloud level. it is more akin to a higher dimension, and from it all things are known to Him. He sees from every direction, just like He stretched out the universe from every direction. simultaneously.
if He sees from every direction simultaneously when He "looks down" at His creation, and He sees a "circle" from every direction, then He is not looking at a pancake. the outline of a pancake seen edge-n is a rectangle, and an ovoid from all other directions but two. there is a certain, unique geometrical form that is a circle from every direction - you know what it is.
why do you say that it is impossible for God - who sees all things - Jesus Christ, who is from above - impossible for Him, omniscient, omnipresent Creator God to see all things unless He stands on a ladder? He created space itself! He sees & affects all things from every angle!
B
It does? Well, you could've fooled me.
I never said anything is too difficult for God. I am just saying I don't know what is exactly true about the earth, and that I don't believe NASA or our science books. You don't know either.
You haven't seen earth from a far enough distance with you're own eyes or travelled around the globe. You trust photos and NASA. I believe through spherical trigonometry the curvature of the earth can be proved or disproved. I am conducting my own experiments.
In the mean time, I prefer to err on the side of the Bible that claims the earth has boundaries, edges and cannot be moved. It is the Lord's foot stool; How would you like a foot stool that moves around? Not me, I like mine stable and steady like the Bible describes the earth. You can choose to believe NASA; as for me and my house, we'll trust what the Lord says in the Bible.
I never said anything is too difficult for God. I am just saying I don't know what is exactly true about the earth, and that I don't believe NASA or our science books. You don't know either.
You haven't seen earth from a far enough distance with you're own eyes or travelled around the globe. You trust photos and NASA. I believe through spherical trigonometry the curvature of the earth can be proved or disproved. I am conducting my own experiments.
In the mean time, I prefer to err on the side of the Bible that claims the earth has boundaries, edges and cannot be moved. It is the Lord's foot stool; How would you like a foot stool that moves around? Not me, I like mine stable and steady like the Bible describes the earth. You can choose to believe NASA; as for me and my house, we'll trust what the Lord says in the Bible.
can a flat earth model mathematically predict and consistently explain the upcoming solar eclipse to be visible all across America, with the precision that the heliocentric, spherical planets etc. modern physics does?
here's your test, in the heavens.
give a flat-planet, snowglobe/terrarium model of the universe that describes the motion of the sun-earth-luna system such that given any known orientation of the three bodies in the past, you can successfully predict the upcoming total eclipse, both in time and in location. your model should also be able to just as accurately predict and explain the location, time and angle of every sunset, sunrise, moonset & moonrise for all time.
you have until Aug. 21, when on a planetary scale, an astronomical model's usefulness will have the opportunity to be demonstrated.
here's your test, in the heavens.
give a flat-planet, snowglobe/terrarium model of the universe that describes the motion of the sun-earth-luna system such that given any known orientation of the three bodies in the past, you can successfully predict the upcoming total eclipse, both in time and in location. your model should also be able to just as accurately predict and explain the location, time and angle of every sunset, sunrise, moonset & moonrise for all time.
you have until Aug. 21, when on a planetary scale, an astronomical model's usefulness will have the opportunity to be demonstrated.