Ask (or answer) Bible questions here. Join or start a Bible discussion now!
Okay. I watched the new video. Thank you for your translation. It was very informative - I agree with most, if not all of his/your observations. I just wish it wasn't a video - I wish it were a web page, with the information. I don't really like videos because of their potential emotional effects, and the possibility to slip in subliminal ideas (not actually sure if this tactic works, but why would the government etc. be using it if it didn't?) A web page could also be read much more quickly, and it would be much faster to look at the pictures/diagrams, until they were understood. I did appreciate the "skip to this point" texts, when the Polish guy was just droning on and on.
Although I believe most of the observations were correct, I don't agree with the interpretation. I think all of the observations are consistent with an Earth that is flat. I think NASA are a big fraud, originally created to make money for military weapons/operations (maybe), but I seriously doubt they ever went to the moon, let alone got a rover on Mars. (As a side note, why are all the planets named after pagan gods?) So it doesn't surprise me that NASA are doctoring their photos and such. When the first Russian went into space, he actually noted that Earth didn't look round (i.e. spherical) to him. Later on, he upset Stalin, and Stalin did away with him, but still interesting to note that he made a statement opposite to the sphericism that we're taught. (There are also stories of astronauts reporting seeing angels and stuff when they get up high, but this could also be misinformation, so I haven't made a decision one way or the other with this claim).
I don't suppose Newton's classical mechanical equations--mathematical logical proofs of gravity-- would help you any, would they?
how is it gravity acts towards the outside of your supposed sphere; rotational momentum? if that's so, why aren't we weightless at the poles along the axis of rotation?
how does the moon appear to set below the horizon; if the surface is concave there should not be an horizon for the moon to set under?
how is that there is night on half of the earth, if the sun is not obscured by the earth itself?
why is it cold at the poles, hot at the equator and temperate in the tropics?
how does this hollow earth have a magnetosphere?
if the starry heavens are inside this hollow earth, can you explain the perceived stable location of a single north star?
did you release a mylar balloon with an attached video camera into the atmosphere yet, to give indisputable evidence of the curvature of the earth? thousands of other people have. take a look at youtube.
how is a lunar eclipse possible inside a hollow earth?
why does volcanic activity exist?
inquiring minds want to know.
This has to be the nearest nothing thread I have ever read. This entire idea of Skycentrism is absolutely absurd. What has become of rational thinking?
I suggest some of you crazies come north for a few months, as the solar azimuth gets lower and lower on the horizon, and the night lengthens till there is almost no day.
I am sure by Feb. they would commit you. Actually, forget it - people who believe this kind of nonsense are already committable. Try not to leave the house, and always post anonymously, or they will come to get you.
They're coming to take you away, haha, hehe, hoho!
Sorry if this is not nice, I do try and be nice, but this garbage is unbelievable - delusional! And does it have any connection whatsoever with a Bible Discussion??
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding,
In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths." Prov. 3:5-6
I thought I would try to at least turn this tragedy of a thread into something useful. So here's some basics of Newtonian mechanics.
I don't know what to do for someone who believes that the earth and atmosphere have the shape of a circular rectangle or a giant apple pie.
I just don't.
For similar reasons (it can be implied that the Earth is flat from the bible, although it doesn't say this specifically), I started reading about a flat Earth. While I'm not totally convinced at this point, there is certainly evidence that supports it. The best in my view, is that we can see further than we should be able to see, if the Earth is a sphere (with the dimensions we're told it is). The guy who started this thread was posting evidence that he says proves the earth is concave, but really, the evidence is simply supporting that the Earth isn't a convex sphere (i.e. it could also be supporting that the Earth is flat).
It could be supporting the theory that the earth is a square. It could be supporting the theory that the earth is an inverse torus. It could be supporting the theory that the earth is Grail shaped.
Shouldn't the earth be Dreidel shaped if the horizen is flat and the earth has four corners? Don't you see that the planets spin around the Dreidel shaped earth? Why can't you accept basic optics?
Video just seemed to be describing the Universal "law" of Gravitation? I prefer laws that are a bit more testable - for example, its a bit hard to measure the gravity on Pluto. How do we even prove that the law is right? Being able to use the equation for phenomena here on Earth (e.g. the two balls with large masses) is much more useful.
so you can't explain why it gets dark at night, or how any star could disappear over the horizon, you don't understand that a disc magnet has a north pole on one face and a south on the other -- nevermind how in the world someone could fly or sail around the earth, any plain optical evidence you say is an illusion caused by some unseen & unexplained optical effect..
things do weigh less at the equator than at the poles - about 0.3% less.
we can see a little bit further around a concave surface because non-empty space refracts light. fill up a glass with water, all the way so that it's bulging over the rim, and look closely at the edge of the water on the rim of the glass. air, too, is a fluid, and refracts to a greater or lesser degree depending on humidity & other factors.
Airy's water telescope experiment, like all other aether experiments, showed that there is not an aether. Michaelson / Morely didn't show the earth was stationary either.
why isn't the north star visible from the southern hemisphere? why does Sigma Octantis, instead appear stationary?
why is it scientists have been able to cross the north pole without falling off the face of the earth?
why can't i point my telescope towards the himalayas & see them from here?
why do we have weather, measurable coriolis force, an atmosphere?
if "the distance from the earth to the sun is so great" that its light is indistinguishable from darkness at night, why don't we measure any difference in its angular size? same question for the moon set? how can there be such a variation in temperature across the earth if distance from the sun is what causes the center & edges of the disc to be cold regions, and the sun is at such a distance that its light cannot even be seen by the most powerful telescopes? how fast is the sun travelling to be back within view at such great angular size every "morning" ?
why are the auroras concentrated at the poles (edge & center of disc) instead of at the equator or uniformly distributed across the surface? why are there auroras at all if the earth either has no magnetic field, or has the field of a stationary disc - all south or north on the faces? why don't compasses spin wildly in every direction at every location on earth?
describe the general form of the path of one of the many pole-to-pole orbiting satellites in the sky -- if you like i can give you a website accurate to within seconds telling you when any of a hundred or more will be visible at your location. amazingly, the math behind this assumes the earth is a rotating, oblate spheroid.
once you have your formula, we can compare and see if your predictions come out correct.
why were false prophets killed in OT times?
1) I thought I explained the flat Earth theory for darkness - the sun is at such a distance, it blends with horizon, as a passing plane eventually does, but at a lower altitude.
2) A star disappears over the horizon for the same reason the sun/moon do - the star drops lower in the sky the further from underneath it you are, until it drops to the horizon.
3) I never said the Earth was a disc magnet.
4) People can sail around the Earth for the same reason they can sail around a disk (north pole center). This has no bearing on the shape of the Earth.
5) You haven't explained the optical evidence that we can see further than we should be able to, were the Earth a sphere.
6) I guess I would have to see evidence that things weigh less at the equator than the poles. Have you proof? I've never heard of this with regards to international gold/silver shipments, where I would expect such a difference might be important (but I'm happy to be wrong if you can provide proof).
7) I agree that light can be refracted, but not to the degree that we can see further than we should on Earth. There's more at play than refraction.
8) Of course there is an aether. What do you think light travels in/on? I disagree about Michaelson/Morely, also. Another experiment proving that the Earth is stationary.
9) Sigma Octantis doesn't appear stationary over the South Pole. There is no equivalent of the North star in the south. We do use the Southern cross, but its not stationary like the North star.
10) Scientists have crossed the north pole because its at the center of the circle/disk. I doubt they have crossed the south, because that's the one on the edge. You get into all sorts of trouble if you try to cross the South Pole without special permission. Don't you find that odd?
11) You can't see the Himalayas because of atmosphere (atmosphere is actually not invisible, just has very low density. This is why far-away mountains have a blue shade). Also because of perspective - as objects get further away, the angle subtended to the observer's eye is smaller. I would guess you are also so far from the Himalayas, they would blend with the horizon, even were there no atmosphere.
12) If the Earth is a spinning ball in space, how does its atmosphere keep up? Wouldn't we experience violent winds? If not, what magical force keeps the atmosphere glued to the solid Earth? It can't be friction, or the friction would also be strong enough to keep the winds stuck too. I would think weather is just the result of different temperatures at different points on the Earth, at different times.
13) If you tried measuring car headlights or lamps at night, you would note that for a considerable distance, the glow of the lamp does not decrease with distance due to atmospheric effects. Probably the same phenomena explains the sun and the moon not diminishing in size when they are at their furthest, but moreso as the atmosphere becomes thicker as we go higher. This would also explain why the sun is smaller at midday, than it is at sunrise/sunset - because it is directly overhead, and has less atmosphere to get through.
14) The speed of the sun must vary, as it must be travelling slower around the Tropic of Cancer, and faster around the Tropic of Capricorn, to give us the consistent 24hour days we have come to know and love. I'm not sure on actual minimum and maximum speeds.
15) I never denied magnetic fields - I just don't believe they prove the Earth is a sphere.
16) I'm not sure about the pole-to-pole orbiting satellites. I would be interested to find out more about these.
17) False prophets were killed in Old Testament times because of the danger they presented to God's people, deceiving them and leading them away from the One True God. I'm not sure how this is related to the Earth's shape or this thread.
The tactic you used above - citing a million arguments all at once without really leaving adequate time to properly address, is known as "elephant-hurling", and is generally frowned upon by honest debaters. I answered what I could, as I'm not trying to deceive anyone, but I would prefer not to make it a practice.
i wrote so many things to make the point that, in my mind, there are so many problems with a flat or hollow earth theory. i also, remembering an earlier thread, assumed this was all about the hollow earth again. i understand now you are talking about a flat earth.
for evidence that an objects weight is affected by latitude ( this is strong evidence for the oblate spherical form of the earth ), a French astronomer & Physicist performed well-known experiments with a pendulum establishing the fact in 1671. information on this is found by searching Jean Richer & Kater's pendulum.
there is also a wealth of historical information on measurements of gravity on earth in this pdf from NOAA -- http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/cgs_...35no691921.pdf
i don't like to just put a link to a page or video to make a point, but i haven't much time this AM and this is info you asked for.
almost every weather satellite and government / military surveillance satellite orbits pole-to-pole. a polar orbit needs more energy to stay on its path but is able to survey the entirety of the earth, where geo-synchronous orbits consume less energy but can only 'cover' a surface area limited by their position.
by the way, it's not clear how a satellite can be in a geo-synchronous orbit if the earth is an unmoving, flat disc. the satellite itself would have to be stationary as well relative to earth, meaning it would have to be at all times providing thrust to counteract gravity - this isn't how satellite orbits work. they would run out of fuel in a short time and would not remain in orbit for the decades that they do.
i'll be back later. i find bad science interesting for the insights into good science it gives.
in re: weight differences according to latitude,
i should add that international markets are not affected by this (since it became known ) because for one thing, the differences are small, greatest when comparing the measurement at a pole and the equator, and i know of no goods that are traded from the north pole to the equator, and for the 2nd, most pertinent reason, the difference is only recorded when using a spring-balance to measure weight. if you use a mass balance, the entire apparatus is affected in the same way, so its measurement is consistent. the mass doesn't change, after all, it's the amount of centripital force exerted on an object varying with the speed of revolution of the earth, coupled with the increased girth of the earth at its equator ( a property induced by the earths spin ).
Last edited by posthuman; September 24th, 2013 at 09:08 AM.
I haven't ignored your post. I am still thinking about it. I'm not sure if I made it clear, but I'm not 100% sure the Earth is flat. I just feel it would go nicely with scripture, and I don't think all the evidence is against it (as per the flat horizon discussion with Truth1 previously). I suppose at this stage, I feel about 50% sure - there is enough scientific evidence to convince me it may be true, the scriptures seem to support it and I suppose for this reason I have developed a kind of emotional attachment to the idea. The other thing I like is that I've read many of the ancients (e.g. the Egyptians, even the Hebrews, I think) believed the world was flat (I think in the case of the Hebrews, encased in the vault of the Heavens). I think in many ways, ancient man was smarter than man today.
To convince someone who believes the Earth is concave, that it is flat, I think, would be far easier than to convince someone who believes the Earth is a sphere, because such a one is already prepared to leave most of the existing accepted reasoning behind why the Earth must be a sphere.
I did start to read the documents about gravity measurement, but might do some online research also (lots of pages in the link!) A belief that the Earth is flat obviously requires that NASA are involved in some kind of fraud, as I believe they were with the moon landing, and the current rover on Mars (if they couldn't make it to the moon, they wouldn't make it to Mars). If the Earth is flat and not rotating, a geosynchronous satellite would only need to rise as high as it needed to, and stay there for the duration of its mission. These satellites would need to be little more than blimps. This is why I am more interested in the pole-to-pole satellites, as tracking the paths of these might be more conclusive.
I do intend to come back to this discussion, but need to read more about gravity measurement at different points on the Earth first.