Is The Earth Flat Or Round?
- Thread starter seed_time_harvest
- Start date
-
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.
According to general relativity gravity is not a force.
In my view matter is mass. It occupies space, and can be observed, and measured.
The way I understand it when two (2) forms of mass interact by contact a wave of energy will pass through each other. If the wave is strong enough; a recordable change will be observed.
In my view, the cause of the change observed is force.
Or so it seems to me
-
In my view matter is mass. It occupies space, and can be observed, and measured.
The way I understand it when two (2) forms of mass interact by contact a wave of energy will pass through each other. If the wave is strong enough; a recordable change will be observed.
In my view, the cause of the change observed is force.
Or so it seems to me
-So you believe globalist scientists over the Word of God?
Research while the info is available.
BTW - what holds an entire fluid ocean miles deep and trillions of tons in weight to a globe earth spinning thru space?
If you answer gravity - you passed the mind control exam.
However there is zero scientific evidence that can keep that fluid ocean on a round globe earth spinning thru space.
Except of course using CGI, Hollywood and Globalist Think Tank.
Research while the info is available.
BTW - what holds an entire fluid ocean miles deep and trillions of tons in weight to a globe earth spinning thru space?
If you answer gravity - you passed the mind control exam.
However there is zero scientific evidence that can keep that fluid ocean on a round globe earth spinning thru space.
Except of course using CGI, Hollywood and Globalist Think Tank.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
A fact that will never change
You can bring a horse to a trough of water.
But you cannot make it drink.
Such is life
-
You can bring a horse to a trough of water.
But you cannot make it drink.
Such is life
-
a globe earth
spinning thru space
will throw water in your face
Peace to you in the Lord Jesus Christ
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I take it that you at least see a possibility of the world being a globe shape? And from the range of possibilities you find the flat earth model more compelling?
In the weighing of possible interpretations, sometimes it isn't that we find one model more compelling than the rest but rather that a different model is distinctly uncompelling (or compellingly untrue) because of some association. An example: if we know that someone tells lies all of the time in a consistent manner, we might feel that what they say is compellingly not the case due to how we are characterizing the source of the information. The villagers eventually considered the boy who cried wolf to be reliably untrue and therefore were compelled to reject the boy's claims.
If you accept a flat earth model, is it because you find it compelling true compared to the alternatives or is it because you find the globe model compellingly untrue?
The model suggests that while spinning and orbits allow for a centrifugal effect of sorts that maintains distance (e.g. the observation is that the moon is currently slowly moving away from earth at inches per year), that masses would still be pulled toward each other. "Down" would simply be the direction of the greater gravitational pull. On earth, "down" would always be toward the core of the globe. The pull of gravity is greatly affected (diminished) by distance. With a precise enough scale, if you weigh something at sea level and then again at the top of the highest mountains, the weight of the object decreases at the mountain tops.
At specific temperatures and pressures, things will "mix" despite having different densities. Air will sink down closer to the core and displace a helium balloon (causing the balloon to float upward). Over time, the helium and air leak through the mylar balloon and the helium concentration in the balloon will decrease. Eventually the balloon will fall back down because the contents of the balloon has changed. Given enough time, all of the helium and air will leak through to the point of equilibrium and the balloon will be completely filled with air (if it hasn't simply deflated first). It is the weight of the mylar itself that will eventually cause a balloon to come back down. I don't think a helium balloon has much bearing on the flat earth "downward pull" model vs. the modern model of gravity. That has more to do with fluid dynamics.
I think it can be a reasonably held position that the media states many untruths (beyond just jokes about weathermen and meterology), and therefore it follows that what they say should be considered with a grain of salt. But we still have to come back to sifting through which observations we deem reliable vs unreliable, and from there we can test those observations against our models to see whether our models are consistent with all of the reliable observations.
I see some comments you've made about the horizon and not theoretically being able to see mountains certain distances from each other. I'm not familiar with this premise. Are you able to explain?
In the weighing of possible interpretations, sometimes it isn't that we find one model more compelling than the rest but rather that a different model is distinctly uncompelling (or compellingly untrue) because of some association. An example: if we know that someone tells lies all of the time in a consistent manner, we might feel that what they say is compellingly not the case due to how we are characterizing the source of the information. The villagers eventually considered the boy who cried wolf to be reliably untrue and therefore were compelled to reject the boy's claims.
If you accept a flat earth model, is it because you find it compelling true compared to the alternatives or is it because you find the globe model compellingly untrue?
The model suggests that while spinning and orbits allow for a centrifugal effect of sorts that maintains distance (e.g. the observation is that the moon is currently slowly moving away from earth at inches per year), that masses would still be pulled toward each other. "Down" would simply be the direction of the greater gravitational pull. On earth, "down" would always be toward the core of the globe. The pull of gravity is greatly affected (diminished) by distance. With a precise enough scale, if you weigh something at sea level and then again at the top of the highest mountains, the weight of the object decreases at the mountain tops.
At specific temperatures and pressures, things will "mix" despite having different densities. Air will sink down closer to the core and displace a helium balloon (causing the balloon to float upward). Over time, the helium and air leak through the mylar balloon and the helium concentration in the balloon will decrease. Eventually the balloon will fall back down because the contents of the balloon has changed. Given enough time, all of the helium and air will leak through to the point of equilibrium and the balloon will be completely filled with air (if it hasn't simply deflated first). It is the weight of the mylar itself that will eventually cause a balloon to come back down. I don't think a helium balloon has much bearing on the flat earth "downward pull" model vs. the modern model of gravity. That has more to do with fluid dynamics.
I think it can be a reasonably held position that the media states many untruths (beyond just jokes about weathermen and meterology), and therefore it follows that what they say should be considered with a grain of salt. But we still have to come back to sifting through which observations we deem reliable vs unreliable, and from there we can test those observations against our models to see whether our models are consistent with all of the reliable observations.
I see some comments you've made about the horizon and not theoretically being able to see mountains certain distances from each other. I'm not familiar with this premise. Are you able to explain?
I would suggest that every modern use of the words 'globe', 'global', 'globally', 'globalism', and 'globalist' are ultimately associated with the idea that our world is a 'globe'. Every use of all of these words stem from the same 'root' origin and meaning. We know that the 'globalists' (that Dino is referring to) are responsible for "pushing" the use of these words in every possible situation in order to create a "globe consciousness" in the minds of the masses. Therefore, every use of each of these words is 'valid' in the context of its particular use.
In order to simplify and avoid unnecessary misunderstanding in these types of discussions - I would suggest that it would make the most sense in the context of such a discussion as this to use the "nearest equivalent" term 'Ball Earther':
Ball Earther / Ball Earth model
Flat Earther / Flat Earth model
- and, leave 'globalist' to its much more readily understood definition of 'Deep State', 'Illuminati', etc.
Make sense?
I am not going to tell anyone what word they must use; rather-and-however, I will suggest that it makes really obvious good sense to use the terms listed above - i.e. - very worthwhile for the purpose of minimizing misunderstanding and confusion.
One day you will understand that it has everything to do with globalist agendas.
In order to simplify and avoid unnecessary misunderstanding in these types of discussions - I would suggest that it would make the most sense in the context of such a discussion as this to use the "nearest equivalent" term 'Ball Earther':
Ball Earther / Ball Earth model
Flat Earther / Flat Earth model
- and, leave 'globalist' to its much more readily understood definition of 'Deep State', 'Illuminati', etc.
Make sense?
I am not going to tell anyone what word they must use; rather-and-however, I will suggest that it makes really obvious good sense to use the terms listed above - i.e. - very worthwhile for the purpose of minimizing misunderstanding and confusion.
One day you will understand that it has everything to do with globalist agendas.
The mere use of the term itself does not constitute slander. There must also be a "slanderous" intent associated with it.
Albeit, I understand perfectly your POV - I would not care to be labeled a 'globalist' either.
I am only suggesting that you make sure of the intent of someone's use of the word before assuming that they wish to slander you.
It would be wonderful if everyone worldwide agreed upon the same terminology to use in any particular discussion; however, sometimes that can be difficult due to customs, etc. being different - ask someone in every country what a 'napkin' is - you may be surprised at the various answers...
I realize that this example is not quite "on-track" with the 'globalist' issue; however, my intent for making it is to illustrate that we should always be careful to not judge too quickly - just in case there is something we are not "seeing" in the proper context.
I would actually agree with you about the "foremost" and "popular" use of the word 'globalist' today - it means the same thing to me [apparently] that it does to you. (or, close enough)
Sometimes it is better to ask first - to try to "clear the air" - before jumping to any conclusions.
Albeit, I understand perfectly your POV - I would not care to be labeled a 'globalist' either.
I am only suggesting that you make sure of the intent of someone's use of the word before assuming that they wish to slander you.
It would be wonderful if everyone worldwide agreed upon the same terminology to use in any particular discussion; however, sometimes that can be difficult due to customs, etc. being different - ask someone in every country what a 'napkin' is - you may be surprised at the various answers...
I realize that this example is not quite "on-track" with the 'globalist' issue; however, my intent for making it is to illustrate that we should always be careful to not judge too quickly - just in case there is something we are not "seeing" in the proper context.
I would actually agree with you about the "foremost" and "popular" use of the word 'globalist' today - it means the same thing to me [apparently] that it does to you. (or, close enough)
Sometimes it is better to ask first - to try to "clear the air" - before jumping to any conclusions.
-
2
- Show all
The simple straight-forward answer to this question is that each observation must be made with 'discernment'.
I did not say the answer was necessarily 'easy' - only 'simple'.
In 'Solomon' fashion - every situation must be discerned from whatever information is available.
And, sometimes - the answer is that there is not enough information available.
I did not say the answer was necessarily 'easy' - only 'simple'.
In 'Solomon' fashion - every situation must be discerned from whatever information is available.
And, sometimes - the answer is that there is not enough information available.