Look dude. I have been places where gravity was confirmed to be. And having waved a bag around filling it with air at the location and the placed microscope slides in the bag for some time and then placed those slides under a microscope and did not see any gravitons or graviolies. Gravity is a myth sir.
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.
empirically derived formula for buoyancy:
note the 'g'
buoyancy is a derivative property of gravity.
i.e. there is no such thing as buoyancy without gravity.
note the 'g'
buoyancy is a derivative property of gravity.
i.e. there is no such thing as buoyancy without gravity.
buoyancy is not simply a theoretically derived equation but derived and proven through observation
the force of gravity explains buoyancy. without gravity there is no explanation for buoyancy.
((if that's where you're intending to go with that))
((that naval navigation isn't based on flat earth))
Certainly, and easily. #1 it's based on stars and observed stellar motion & distribution make zero sense and are entirely inexplicable on a FE basis, however are completely explained by an oblate-spheroid earth orbiting the sun.
#2 here read this explanation on why sextants are nonsense on FE ((read the second response))
https://www.quora.com/Man-relies-on...s-round-or-flat-like-a-rectangle-Am-I-correct
Certainly, and easily. #1 it's based on stars and observed stellar motion & distribution make zero sense and are entirely inexplicable on a FE basis, however are completely explained by an oblate-spheroid earth orbiting the sun.
#2 here read this explanation on why sextants are nonsense on FE ((read the second response))
https://www.quora.com/Man-relies-on...s-round-or-flat-like-a-rectangle-Am-I-correct
-
1
- Show all
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line - even on earth.
If considering a line that is between two points on a sphere, then it is still a straight line in the geographic sense - albeit, it is bent around the curved surface of the sphere. In this particular sense, the curve "under the line" makes this statement technically correct.
However, in the sense that you mean it - a geographic curve - it is incorrect in that - the curve you are referring to is actually a curve as illustrated on a "flat" (i.e. - Mercator) map. On a globe, it would still be a straight line geographically.
You are [only] illustrating what you believe to be strictly a 'global' idea within a 'flat' frame of reference.
And, remember - the "curve" you are referring to is actually a straight line on a Flat Earth map.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. And, on a Flat Earth map, it really is a straight line...
If considering a line that is between two points on a sphere, then it is still a straight line in the geographic sense - albeit, it is bent around the curved surface of the sphere. In this particular sense, the curve "under the line" makes this statement technically correct.
However, in the sense that you mean it - a geographic curve - it is incorrect in that - the curve you are referring to is actually a curve as illustrated on a "flat" (i.e. - Mercator) map. On a globe, it would still be a straight line geographically.
You are [only] illustrating what you believe to be strictly a 'global' idea within a 'flat' frame of reference.
And, remember - the "curve" you are referring to is actually a straight line on a Flat Earth map.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. And, on a Flat Earth map, it really is a straight line...
-
1
- Show all
It doesn't matter when a random numpty outside the church is talking rubbish.
But if people are claiming FE is a biblical principle, then it's a problem. It's terrible, witness-destroying PR for the church.
The Bible is truth, if you have to present it to non-believers, you shouldn't have to begin by mopping up a mess of stupidity
caused by brothers in Christ. It reflects on us all as a body.
"15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason
for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, "
1 Peter 3
Beside that, the utter disrespect shown for our own Christian heritage turns my stomach.
We have enough of that kind of attack from outside sources.
But if people are claiming FE is a biblical principle, then it's a problem. It's terrible, witness-destroying PR for the church.
The Bible is truth, if you have to present it to non-believers, you shouldn't have to begin by mopping up a mess of stupidity
caused by brothers in Christ. It reflects on us all as a body.
"15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason
for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, "
1 Peter 3
Beside that, the utter disrespect shown for our own Christian heritage turns my stomach.
We have enough of that kind of attack from outside sources.
Funny, that's what they said about Christians who renounced the theory of evolution once. Now pretty much even non-Christians know the theory is bunk compared to what the bible teaches.
If you look into the bible, you will find out it is also Flat Earth, as well as Creationist. Kent Hovind (champion debater of biblical creation against evolutionists) wouldn't dare to debate this subject with Rob Skiba (because Kent knew the bible supports Flat Earth). And it wouldn't surprise me that if in 30 years time or so, most will reject ball-Earth theory as they now reject the Evolution myth.
If you look into the bible, you will find out it is also Flat Earth, as well as Creationist. Kent Hovind (champion debater of biblical creation against evolutionists) wouldn't dare to debate this subject with Rob Skiba (because Kent knew the bible supports Flat Earth). And it wouldn't surprise me that if in 30 years time or so, most will reject ball-Earth theory as they now reject the Evolution myth.
I'm talking about what happens in reality, not on a map. There is no flat earth map, by the way. FE maps are simply globe maps butchered to make them appear flat.
Where possible, ships and aircraft follow a curve, not a straight line for the reason I've explained. If the earth was flat, plotting a curved course is foolish. I can assure you that it's not done to try and prove FE believers wrong. It's all do with money. Shipping and air travel is incredibly expensive. Great circle navigation decreases the distance and hence the cost in fuel and time.
If a line is bent along the curve of a sphere, it is not straight. You argument assumes a flat earth. Empirical evidence proves FE is wrong.
Where possible, ships and aircraft follow a curve, not a straight line for the reason I've explained. If the earth was flat, plotting a curved course is foolish. I can assure you that it's not done to try and prove FE believers wrong. It's all do with money. Shipping and air travel is incredibly expensive. Great circle navigation decreases the distance and hence the cost in fuel and time.
If a line is bent along the curve of a sphere, it is not straight. You argument assumes a flat earth. Empirical evidence proves FE is wrong.
Tell me how many man hours and how many ships/aircraft flat earthers have employed to map the earth's surface. Don't bother, I'll tell you. None. Zero. Not any. How you can imagine that the maps are inaccurate is beyond me. The FE maps I've seen are butchered versions of the globe. How do you imagine that Google Earth was produced? By wrapping an FE map around an orange? How do you explain the actual images? I've lived in four different countries and at least 20 different towns. I can find them on Google Earth. It's not fake. If it was, it would be obvious to everyone in no time.
The earth has been observed to be a ball. 12 people have seen the ball earth from the surface of the moon. Over 500 people have been into space. There are countless spy satellites photographing the earth as well as GPS, survey, weather, communication and other satellites. They all demonstrate empirically that the earth is a globe.
-
1
- Show all
In reality, what-I-believe-you-are-saying is impossible.
In reality, the shortest path between two points is geographically a straight line - with-or-without any curvature "under" it. Such a line may be represented on a Mercator map as a curved line - but, on a globe [earth map], it is geographically a straight line with curvature "under" it. Any curved line between those same two points is longer - "There are no two ways about it..." - that is the [physical] reality.
I keep using the word 'geographically' (because it is the one you are used to hearing) to keep this in the 'map' realm.
The straight-line path between any two points on a sphere will pass through the sphere; however, within the 'geographical' context, it is a 'straight' line across the surface of the sphere with curvature "under" it.
Nope. What you are thinking about is geographically a straight line [across the map].
If all you are trying to say is that - on a globe - the shortest path between two points - following a spherical surface curvature - is a curved line having spherical surface curvature "under" it (but geographically a straight line otherwise) --- then, I think we are in agreement!
If, on the other hand, you are saying that the shortest path between two points - following a spherical surface curvature - but, that is also curved in the lateral sense - such that it would appear curved on a globe [earth map] --- then, we are not in agreement.
If the earth was spherical, plotting a curved course is foolish. (by the same reasoning)
In '3D' terms - of course - and, I explained that above.
In 'geographical' terms, the shortest path between two points is a straight line - period.
Your argument assumes a globe earth.
And, for you to make a big deal over the curvature "under" a geographical straight line on a globe (if that is what you are doing) - is pretty needless and senseless in the context of the discussion - don't you think???
If all of this doesn't hit the mark precisely, then will you please attempt to explain yourself in a totally different way so that I may understand what you really meant...?
Because - from my perspective - all you are really trying to say is:
"The fact that the earth is a globe proves that the earth is a globe."
(Which is a profoundly illogical form of direct circular reasoning.)
In reality, the shortest path between two points is geographically a straight line - with-or-without any curvature "under" it. Such a line may be represented on a Mercator map as a curved line - but, on a globe [earth map], it is geographically a straight line with curvature "under" it. Any curved line between those same two points is longer - "There are no two ways about it..." - that is the [physical] reality.
I keep using the word 'geographically' (because it is the one you are used to hearing) to keep this in the 'map' realm.
The straight-line path between any two points on a sphere will pass through the sphere; however, within the 'geographical' context, it is a 'straight' line across the surface of the sphere with curvature "under" it.
Nope. What you are thinking about is geographically a straight line [across the map].
If all you are trying to say is that - on a globe - the shortest path between two points - following a spherical surface curvature - is a curved line having spherical surface curvature "under" it (but geographically a straight line otherwise) --- then, I think we are in agreement!
If, on the other hand, you are saying that the shortest path between two points - following a spherical surface curvature - but, that is also curved in the lateral sense - such that it would appear curved on a globe [earth map] --- then, we are not in agreement.
If the earth was spherical, plotting a curved course is foolish. (by the same reasoning)
In '3D' terms - of course - and, I explained that above.
In 'geographical' terms, the shortest path between two points is a straight line - period.
Your argument assumes a globe earth.
And, for you to make a big deal over the curvature "under" a geographical straight line on a globe (if that is what you are doing) - is pretty needless and senseless in the context of the discussion - don't you think???
If all of this doesn't hit the mark precisely, then will you please attempt to explain yourself in a totally different way so that I may understand what you really meant...?
Because - from my perspective - all you are really trying to say is:
"The fact that the earth is a globe proves that the earth is a globe."
(Which is a profoundly illogical form of direct circular reasoning.)
-
1
- Show all