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!
"Forget about curvature arguments. The fact that you can only see 2.5 per cent at a time proves it isn’t flat. If it was flat you should be able to see the whole thing from even just the top of the tallest mountain or on any commercial flat." Pic taken top of Mount Everest
Think about it for a moment: explorers who kept journals while they explored polar regions would likely have no idea what the concurrent temperature was at the opposite end of the world. They would have been making assumptions. So your evidence doesn't support your assertion. Perhaps a different phrasing would make your assertion valid.
Yeah, I'll have to go with Dino on that one... defending a proposition is pretty much a debate.
And if I was debating, I would have to ignore any claims about records of explorers if you didn't produce the records.
Here's why: people often cite a source for something, and if you actually go look closely at the source, it will actually say something else. So if people quote a source, they need to show it. That's just being fair I think.
I'll go you one better.
Sometimes I've read that a certain source backs up MY argument, but I never looked at the original source myself.
When I finally look at it... I find out I was lied to.
I'm not saying the records are false, I'm just saying it's fair to ask for them.
And I were debating this, I'd expect to see those records.
On the other hand....
if i were debating this, on Dino's side, I wouldn't even go the direction of those records.
I think that's just a rabbit trail.... and it could all end up being irrelevant. ..
The length of daylight is not determined by the speed of the sun; rather, it is determined by the distance and arc of its movement along its circuit path from first-light to last-light.
On any day of the year, the sun moves 15 degrees per hour. The 'rate' factor is constant; therefore, length of daylight will be approximately the same for every day of the year - different only due to changes in the arc of the path of the movement of the sun.
You have to consider the arc of the sun as it moves along its circuit path - relative to the point-in-question.
What is significant is the speed at which first-light "comes" and last-light "goes" --- it is well-reported that in "southern" areas, it is much faster than it is in "northern" areas.
Did you ever watch a sunrise or sunset yet?
Like I asked you to do years ago?
Arclength s = radius*angle
For a longer radius, the sun would have to travel faster to subtend the same 15° angle.
You flat lot say, the sunlight doesn't travel everywhere, because that's what you have to say to explain why there is such a thing as night.
Therefore, 'daylight' is restricted to a patch on the surface of the Earth of a fixed area under the travelling sun. Therefore, the amount of daylight a fixed position on the earth receives is calculated by how long the sun takes to move from the position in which the leading edge of the 'daylight patch' crosses the fixed earth position, to the position in which the sun moves when the trailing edge of the 'daylight patch' crosses the fixed position on earth.
Therefore the amount of daylight a point on earth gets is definitely dependent on the speed of the suns movement ((in the flat model))
Therefore Gary still doesn't understand what he's talking about.
This post made me realize that I did not word my statement correctly. My apologies to all. At the time I made the statement (post #27), I was thinking about the extremes and not the middle (evidenced by post #29) - not from 0-90 degrees N&S - rather, from something more like 60-90 degrees N&S. It is the far-north vs far-south that I intended to illustrate.
Look into it -- you may find it very interesting...