The Earth is round.
- Thread starter Fenner
- 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.
B
You obviously haven't research flight patterns yet?
Globe top, Flat bottom
There's an example for ya. Look it up, if you care.
Globe top, Flat bottom
There's an example for ya. Look it up, if you care.
like i asked, please don't point me to videos of someone else talking whom i can't interact with, that you may have been wowed by. i will not watch them at all.
you want me to just post videos in reply? what use is that.
tell me in your own words, what you understand. if you can't do that, then i need to go talk to whomever it is making videos, not you. if you haven't got this theory internalized, it's no use talking to you about it. you may as well say "go read a book" and i may as well say "go read another book" in which case why are we talking to each other at all, when we should both be spending all our time in the library?
stick to one subject. explain why things fall towards large masses with exactly the properties of acceleration that they do, and why things orbit each other, using however it is you define the words density and buoyancy.
if you can't do that, bouncing around from topic to topic without adequately explaining any single one is not an argument, it's a mechanism to avoid criticism of indefensible positions.
Last edited:
This is true. That is why aircraft flying across the ocean go up around the north pole instead of straight across, because its actually a shorter distance...
"Planes fly in Great Circles, rather than ‘straight’ lines, which is actually the shortest way to get between two points due to the spherical nature of the Earth. That’s been proven by numerous methods, including mathematical proofs, but the simplest way to understand it is that the circumference of the Earth is so much greater at the equator than near the poles."
Source: Fly Tokyo to San Francisco in 80 seconds [VIDEO] - Techly
"Planes fly in Great Circles, rather than ‘straight’ lines, which is actually the shortest way to get between two points due to the spherical nature of the Earth. That’s been proven by numerous methods, including mathematical proofs, but the simplest way to understand it is that the circumference of the Earth is so much greater at the equator than near the poles."
Source: Fly Tokyo to San Francisco in 80 seconds [VIDEO] - Techly
G
EM Induction makes "gravity" irrelevant and "acts" on everything. I have done my homework (and it's quite fascinating). You could learn about this yourself which will be more rewarding anyway and then come back and tell me I was wrong and give an explanation of why, if that is the conclusion you find. If you insist I MUST tell you myself or you are not going to look into it, then it's fair to say you don't really care to know.
How does EM make gravity irrelevant?
Please explain why a rubber ball is accelerated at 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] towards the very large mass called the earth, no matter where on the earth you are, even in the presence of a B field of arbitrary strength? Regardless of the density of the object or mass of the object, moderated only by calculable drag & other frictional forces?
EM is a polar field -- why isn't gravity?
Why don't magnets float if i flip them over?
Why doesn't an electrified object weight less or more when it is turned on than when it is turned off?
Why don't objects which have strong E and B fields weigh more or less depending on orientation?
What happened to your buoyancy and density argument?
[HR][/HR]
i think we already established that it was false for you to say that FE is the theory that doesn't need additional explanation -- so if you've really spent years giving this serious consideration, how about you impart that understanding to us?
You need to redefine buoyancy and density; do you need to redefine EM too? Then please don't do us all the disservice of saying it's all wrong without providing the truth. Tell us how to speak the language of the new physics.
i'm asking you to explain the position that you assert you believe, and believe because of reason, not emotionalism, because if you are incapable of communicating it yourself, you don't comprehend it. If you don't comprehend it, how can you say it's convinced you by being reasonable? If you don't even comprehend the reasoning behind it?
Don't we as Christians expect the same thing? If you can't communicate the gospel -- how can you say you believe the gospel?
i'm simply asking you to know what you believe.
If you honestly don't understand it well enough to talk intelligently about it, then please just admit that, and admit that you believe it because of some kind of feeling or compulsion, not because of reason. That's a different animal, and the character of this discussion should radically change -- we can dispense with humiliating the 'science' of FE, and with painfully trying to extract it from you.
The proof of having done one's homework is presenting it, not showing us someone else's homework, and not simply saying you did it and then refusing to turn it in.
i'm asking someone who i can actually communicate with ((?)) to explain what she says she's spent years studying, and here plainly asserts she has acquired knowledge and understanding of. Pretty sure that means that i care to know what she has gleaned.
But if you insist i play your game, then here's a link to Newton's Principia:
LOL read it and tell me in detail everything that's wrong with it, or 'it's fair to say you don't really care to know' ??
i'm asking someone who i can actually communicate with ((?)) to explain what she says she's spent years studying, and here plainly asserts she has acquired knowledge and understanding of. Pretty sure that means that i care to know what she has gleaned.
But if you insist i play your game, then here's a link to Newton's Principia:
LOL read it and tell me in detail everything that's wrong with it, or 'it's fair to say you don't really care to know' ??
G
What I was expressing is that I'm not here to "teach full blown lessons". If I didn't understand a concept that was being talked about I would stop there and go learn, then come back to the conversion. I would not expect someone here to lead me by hand step by step. My short time here at CC I have learned that reasonable conversation is hard to come by and I was doing all the footwork while others just called "BS" without giving WHY they call "BS". Just look back through this thread alone.
This is where the "it's fair to say....." comment came in.
I did not give up on density/buoyancy.
I did side step for the moment to make way for EM Induction and then later tie them in.
I haven't quite figured out how to work "line upon line/precept on precept" forum style.
EM is measurable and can replace gravity that is not measurable.
EM holds everything together including atoms and is the force to push and pull things.
Gravity changes it's laws at will being STRONG sometimes and WEAK at others.
The experiment by Faraday show an e-current creates a magnetic field and later that a changing
magnetic field will create an e-current.
It's pretty cool to see how this can be used to levitate, heat up and even light up
(essentially creating a FE sun) with only EM conductors.
Density/buoyancy is easily shown in water, the more dense the object is the closer to the bottom
it goes. On a FE there is no reason to include "gravity" or any of it's offshoots that it needs to explain
"this to explain that" because there is nothing to "hold" to the Earth.
Gravity is a necessity for the globe and was "formulated" to uphold the Helio Theory.
Since gravity is not proven, and since we are talking about a FE where it is not needed anyway (unless you know of what it would be good for) are we able to move on to other things?
This is where the "it's fair to say....." comment came in.
I did not give up on density/buoyancy.
I did side step for the moment to make way for EM Induction and then later tie them in.
I haven't quite figured out how to work "line upon line/precept on precept" forum style.
EM is measurable and can replace gravity that is not measurable.
EM holds everything together including atoms and is the force to push and pull things.
Gravity changes it's laws at will being STRONG sometimes and WEAK at others.
The experiment by Faraday show an e-current creates a magnetic field and later that a changing
magnetic field will create an e-current.
It's pretty cool to see how this can be used to levitate, heat up and even light up
(essentially creating a FE sun) with only EM conductors.
Density/buoyancy is easily shown in water, the more dense the object is the closer to the bottom
it goes. On a FE there is no reason to include "gravity" or any of it's offshoots that it needs to explain
"this to explain that" because there is nothing to "hold" to the Earth.
Gravity is a necessity for the globe and was "formulated" to uphold the Helio Theory.
Since gravity is not proven, and since we are talking about a FE where it is not needed anyway (unless you know of what it would be good for) are we able to move on to other things?
yes, kind of like saying "gravity is BS"
without giving the slightest explanation of why you say gravity is BS.
or saying all the action of gravity is 'explained' by E fields and 'buoyancy' and 'density' without any gravitational force whatsoever, without giving the slightest explanation of why or how this is so.
there must be some kind of discussion you are willing to have that is more than "all known physics is BS because i say so, believe me, and gravity is completely unnecessary because, electromagnetic force, sorry if you want an explanation that means you don't really want to know"
while still being less than writing a college-level textbook.
that's what i'm asking you for -- since you say you've spent a number of years 'studying' this and that you've 'done your homework' -- do you really think it's sufficient to make such an extraordinary claim and refuse to back it up at all?
is just saying "electromagnetism exists" a sufficient explanation, in your mind? is that all the video said, and you became convinced?
boy, i hope not.
do you think that's being unreasonable, to ask for more than 'because i said so' by way of explanation?