it's not velocity that can jolt one's stomach.
it's acceleration / deceleration.
. . or do you not believe in physics either?
-
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.
it's not velocity that can jolt one's stomach.
it's acceleration / deceleration.
. . or do you not believe in physics either?
A hurricane can reach speeds of up to 100 or more miles per hour and the physical effects of that are devastating. Do tell how dire the effects of 1,000 mph spinning be (whilest tilted and wobbling at that.) If that be not enough the madness doesn't end there for they would have you believe the earth is travelling at 65,000 mph around the sun of all things. Yet wait it gets even more ludicrous for they'd have you believe that the earth and the sun travel over 400,000 mph around a fictional galaxy.
I'll believe the Bible instead for it is well tested and well proven.
Psalm 93
1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]The floods have lifted up, O Lord, the floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their waves.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]The Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine house, O Lord, for ever.
E
EdisonTrent
Guest
2 Timothy 3:16
[SUP]16 [/SUP]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Have I not said "don't just take my word for it"? However, don't just write it off either, but go to test it and prove. For I was not unlike ye all being scoffers against mine own understanding thinking the earth a spinning sphere and believing the lying signs and wonders. This be how I know every argument ye all have brought forth, for indeed we are all taught that same heresy. Howbeit I do know more than ye on this subject for I know that which ye know and I also have researched the other side which ye have not been taught. Therefore research, test, and prove for it is indeed written:
1 Thessalonians 5:21
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
E
EdisonTrent
Guest
Correct I agree with Timothy 3:16 the bible is meant for correction but I can't completely trust men even those some 800 yrs ago to correct it with righteousness for man has always been hungry for control then and now.
Seeing that we agree scripture is good for study and seeing as scripture says to test and prove, let's us therefore test and prove. We have gone over much scripture, let us test this subject from many angles.
I will agree that some men be hungry for control. Not all, but some do indeed. This is even an angle that is good for study of this topic. For indeed one theory of why institutions fake and perpetrate such absurd heresies is for control. Particularly with NASA and with space programs one theory is that they continue on with it even after the Cold War to create the illusion of technological superiority.
I suggest researching some very interesting quotes from Lyndon Johnson about the space program.
One of the most famous being "control of space means control of the world"
First, it is obvious that the Soviet valuation on the significance of control in outer space has exceeded that of our officials.
The sputniks now orbiting the earth are not military weapons, but have military potential.
Control of space means control of the world, far more certainly, far more totally than any control that has ever or could ever be achieved by weapons, or by troops of occupation.
The race we are in- or which we must enter- is not the race to perfect long-range ballistic missiles. There is something more important than any ultimate weapon. That is the ultimate position- the position of total control over earth lies somewhere out in space.
This is the future, the distant future, though not so distant as we may have thought. Whoever gains that ultimate position gains control, total control, over the earth for purposes of tyranny or for the service of freedom.http://christianchat.com/#endref1
- LBJ President Lyndon Johnson | Presidential UFO
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
"According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[3] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[4]
Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[5] Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat", and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.
[6]
In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Jeffrey Russell describes the Flat Earth theory as a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization and creationism.[7][8]
James Hannam wrote:
The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict.[9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[5] Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat", and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.
[6]
In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Jeffrey Russell describes the Flat Earth theory as a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization and creationism.[7][8]
James Hannam wrote:
The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict.[9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
I give you a like for this post because now this is the most intellectual point brought forth to the study.
For sooth it is indeed true that in the Middle Ages to Renaissance people did not popularly think the earth was flat like the scoffers of today like to use in jest. In fact the spherical earth model was the accepted model which they adopted from the pagan greeks. I think the modern misconception comes from where people mix up Geocentricism vs Heliocentricism which was the more popular debate.
The fact is at that time the myth of the spherical earth was prevalent, but they had tried to mix geocentricism with the spherical earth myth. These two theories obviously cannot coexist which led to the rise of heliocentricism under Copernicus and later Galileo.
Furthermore this is proof that the spherical myth originates not with Christianity, but rather with the pagans, to my knowledge earliest with Aristotle (though Aristotle held to geocentricism) and when the greek pagan writings were permitted to be published publicly to the masses it was generally accepted in Europe. Also the spherical myth existed in almost all pagan religions of the AD, and many of the BC including hinduism and islam well before the Europeans adopted it.
Christianity based on a literal belief in the Bible is in fact the only major religion to portray the idea of both a flat earth as well as a geocentric cosmology. It is impossible to separate geocentricism and the flat earth fact because without geocentricism the flat earth theory obviously falls apart, and without the flat earth theory the geocentric cosmology falls apart as well. This right here is what science calls the "falsifiability" part of both theories, thus both are completely scientific, and actually have never been refuted scientifically even though they have never been accepted either.
It is also to be noted heliocentricism alone is easy enough to pick apart both as contrary to the Bible and contrary to science. The origin of heliocentricism has its origins with the pagan greeks, namely the Pythagoreans, to my knowledge at least. The main scientific argument outside of the Bible against heliocentricism is an old one, namely the physical impossibility of the earth spinning at such speeds without cataclysm, and the dynamic nature of the weather and the Four Winds, as opposed to a constant cataclysmic wind coming from one direction which a moving earth would cause. To my knowledge this was put forth by the pagan Ptolmey, albeit he too believed in the spherical myth.
Aside from that the models of Galileo were recanted, thus they are admitted all ready to be false. It is even taught in schools that Galileo recanted, and this means that he essentially admitted that heliocentricism and the spherical earth are false. The school systems of today never actually confirm heliocentricism nor the spherical earth, but only teach it one-sided and they never teach proper Biblical "flat" earth and geocentric theories. In fact the school system, having been influenced mostly by the Church of England, a highly heretical sect teach a false view of the flat earth theory with a wrong map and false information, whilest never actually confirming or denying either theory, but use the power of suggestion to cast the Biblical view of cosmology as false. A common point is for instance saying that Chritopher Columbus set sail to prove the earth was spherical, when in fact he did not, but was commissioned to find a trade route to India. This also casts a false narrative that the flat earth map's edge is at the Americas.
This only proves that every ancient group of peoples and every ancient religion was wrong either in that they adhered to heliocentricism or to the spherical myth or both, but that only the Biblical culture and the religion of the Bible and the Bible alone of all texts records the proper cosmology uniquely in upholding both geocentricism, the flat earth, and the absence of planets which sets it apart uniquely from all religions and also proves that it is the only true religion.
Last edited:
the earth is travelling around the sun through basically nothing. there's no resistance. space is almost completely empty.
the air, on the other hand, is very dense with nitrogen and oxygen and such. big difference. and as the earth moves, so it's atmosphere moves too - there's no friction between it.
think of driving down the road at 70mph with a piece of paper on your dashboard. why doesn't everything inside the car get thrown to the back window?
because everything in the car is simultaneously moving at the same speed. the air inside the car is all moving at 70mph too. so you don't feel it pressed against your face, unless you roll down the window - then you are experiencing air outside that is not moving at 70mph like you are. but there's no air outside the "car" of the whole earth - so there's no "wind" to blow us off the face of it.
& you're only pressed into your seat when you accelerate your car. not when you're cruising.
same with the earth. it's moving with constant speed. you can't feel it. you have no way to tell whether right now you are stationary of moving at tremendous speed - you can only feel speeding up, slowing down, or changing direction: acceleration.
i believe the Bible too:
He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.
(Job 9:8)
(Job 9:8)
do you not believe in physics or just ignorant of it?
the heavens & the earth are wonderfully made by Him. i think the way He orchestrated everything together is fantastic! i see no reason to be willfully blind to it. there's no contradiction between the Bible and the truth of how the universe is put together - you're imagining things, man. imagining things that really don't make sense and are easily disproven. just look up at night - see those stars? they are real. watch them for a few hours and see how they move. there's actually a lot of motion going on around you.
yea I know it can get confusing. Let me try and help you. The reason YOU don't feel any effect of the spinning earth, the rotating around the sun etc...is that YOU are doing exactly the same thing. So the earth does nothing relative to you. Now IF you could sit on another galaxy and watch the whole thing from a distance, then you'd see you and the sun are moving pretty fast. Amazing isn't it. I hope this helps
Oh and if you think that's mind blowing, wait until you see what happens when things have a big mass or travel at the speed of light. Time changes - don't u just love this amazing universe Zoii
T
tanach
Guest
OK I give up. I now believe that the earth is flat and on the back of a giant tortoise. The sky is a dome with little peepholes
for God to look down and check on us all, and if I travel too far I will fall off. I am now going to have a long lay down in a darkened room.
for God to look down and check on us all, and if I travel too far I will fall off. I am now going to have a long lay down in a darkened room.
On the point of spinning:
Lol this is a common analogy made (that of the car), but actually it proves all the more the earth is not a spinning sphere. The only way both the earth and sky could be moving together with no physical effects is if the sky were encapsulated with some sort of solid substance as with the car. Elsewise the spinning of the earth (the land) would indeed cause massive friction with the sky and the earth
Indeed the car analogy proves it, for if you drive a paltry 25 miles per hour and roll the window down you can feel the forces generated from the air passing over the solid materials of the car. Now imagine you take the paltry forces of air and friction generated at 25 mph in a car and multiply that by 40 times. That is the forces that would be generated just by the alledged spin alone (ignoring the tilt and wobble which makes it even more unstable and catastrophic). When one figures in the alledged speed going around the sun and the galaxy it makes the idea of heliocentricism quite absurd by physics.
So the only way that the earth could be spinning without such forces generated between the friction of the air and earth is if the nethermost region of the sky were solidly encapsulated (ie: a literal glass ceiling.) Furthermore that proves that if the earth were spinning and if it were travelling at such massive speeds through the cosmos that it would be impossible to have any satellites at all (to go back to the car analogy, put some children's toys on top of the car.)
On the motion of the heavens: You won't find me deny this, it is of necessity that since the earth is stationary the heavens must be in motion. This is also another supporting proof for the "flat" earth, though moreso a direct proof for geocentricism.
Also indeed the stars are real, I have never said they weren't. In fact most of what is commonly called "planets" are in fact stars. In fact the origin of the word planet itself means wandering star.
Lol this is a common analogy made (that of the car), but actually it proves all the more the earth is not a spinning sphere. The only way both the earth and sky could be moving together with no physical effects is if the sky were encapsulated with some sort of solid substance as with the car. Elsewise the spinning of the earth (the land) would indeed cause massive friction with the sky and the earth
Indeed the car analogy proves it, for if you drive a paltry 25 miles per hour and roll the window down you can feel the forces generated from the air passing over the solid materials of the car. Now imagine you take the paltry forces of air and friction generated at 25 mph in a car and multiply that by 40 times. That is the forces that would be generated just by the alledged spin alone (ignoring the tilt and wobble which makes it even more unstable and catastrophic). When one figures in the alledged speed going around the sun and the galaxy it makes the idea of heliocentricism quite absurd by physics.
So the only way that the earth could be spinning without such forces generated between the friction of the air and earth is if the nethermost region of the sky were solidly encapsulated (ie: a literal glass ceiling.) Furthermore that proves that if the earth were spinning and if it were travelling at such massive speeds through the cosmos that it would be impossible to have any satellites at all (to go back to the car analogy, put some children's toys on top of the car.)
On the motion of the heavens: You won't find me deny this, it is of necessity that since the earth is stationary the heavens must be in motion. This is also another supporting proof for the "flat" earth, though moreso a direct proof for geocentricism.
Also indeed the stars are real, I have never said they weren't. In fact most of what is commonly called "planets" are in fact stars. In fact the origin of the word planet itself means wandering star.
Last edited:
Lol the sky is a dome indeed, like unto a tent. If you travel too far off Antarctica indeed you could, but you'd likely freeze to death and suffer from the thinner air the closer to the edge you got first.
The turtle theory is actually in origin from native american paganism. I think we can all agree that it is no turtle. It's more like this:
2 Peter 3:5
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Actually to properly study the nature of the "flat" earth to honestly prove it or disprove it is one of the highest forms of intellectualism by reason that you have to investigate virtually every form of knowledge from the Bible, science, politics, religion, psychology, sociology, history, media, art, theory, etc.
E
EdisonTrent
Guest
I think my Brain would be flat after researching all that knowledge hehe... I'm probably better off setting on the sidelines and watching the world go around
Lol, and yet it never moves. Though try cloud watching for a few days. It's another good and simple experiment. If the earth were spinning the clouds would move in only one direction, they would also move very fast. Howbeit you can observe the clouds moving in various directions and various speeds. This is proof of the Four Winds, which are controlled by God. The only way there can be the presence of the Four Winds is if the earth does not move, but that they are caused by God. It is not possible to have a spherical and spinning earth (though it be possible to be spherical and stationary) and have this phenomena, but there'd only be one constant and uniform wind.
Psalm 147:18
[SUP]18 [/SUP]He sendeth out his word, and melteth them: he causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow.
Psalm 135:5-7
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries.
Matthew 24:31
[SUP]31 [/SUP]And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
I know when I first heard this I was the same way as most here. There's just no way, we've proved that a LONG time ago, and to be clear from the jump I'm not at a place where I feel the earth is flat without a doubt, but I will admit that there is some very compelling evidence that it may very well be flat, like pictures of New York City skyline taken from 40 miles away when the buildings should be well below the horizon line according to science, and a few picture from private rockets that take stills (without the "bug eye" lens) from like 25 miles up that show a strait horizon line. I also find it strange that most of the “official” pictures of any planets NASA releases are missing stars. Now I also know they have “official reasons” for most all of this stuff, but I have to admit there is some compelling evidence for a flat earth. I also think it’s really crazy how all this “crazy conspiracy” stuff, like evolution + space missions + flat earth, things most people these days would never question, and as shown in this thread, be openly mocked for, all seem to tie in together to promote a possible huge deception I feel is coming, namely aliens arriving. A deception I could see even fooling even the elect. I know it seems completely ridiculous, and again I haven’t swallowed it all yet, but isn’t that what a “great deception” would be? I know I haven’t been up to space to KNOW the world is round with my own eye’s, and I get more skeptical about “what experts say” every day, but I do think it would be one heck of an effective deception, and there are some interesting arguments for a lot of it. I say look into it yourselves because just saying “Wow you really are stupid” without knowing the case against what you think is fact, is not an argument.
it's not that.
i have a degree in physics. i can explain every single one of those perceived "problems" you mentioned - which are not problems at all, but badly misapplied physics, ignorance of physical phenomena, willfully deceptive presentation of information and in some cases outright lies.
it's "how much time and energy do i want to waste explaining fundamental science to someone who is not interested in grasping it and won't believe me anyway" ?
see, how many times do i need to post to GodIsSalvation that there is nothing in space producing friction - so all of his argument is unfounded? because his mind is already made up, and no amount of factual truth is going to dissuade him. he's convinced that this "obvious flaw" is something no one in the last 5,000 years ever thought of, i guess. probably there's just some sense of pride in thinking you've got it right and everyone else is wrong. who knows?
but it's a waste of time for me, i think. it's not that i don't have any answer. a person just gets tired of talking to a brick wall that thinks it's a giraffe after a while, trying patiently to explain that it's actually a brick wall. it keeps acting just like a brick wall saying "i'm a giraffe!" no matter what evidence you present it -- and it gets to be exactly like "talking to a brick wall" after a certain point, and you realize that there are much better things you could be doing with your life, and that Proverbs is full of advice against talking to a fool, and even though you don't want to say "you're a fool" you don't have any other ready explanation for a brick wall thinking it's a giraffe, so you figure you ought to just walk away before you say something foolish. the only thing is -- a brick wall that thinks it's a giraffe is interesting in a disturbing sort of way, because you certainly don't run into one of those very often, so there you are acting like a fool yourself, engaging it some more when you know already it's a waste of time.
anyway -- you want to prove to me that the earth is flat and does not rotate?
explain in detail why a focault's pendulum works, and why it precesses with a predictable deflection by latitude and is unaffected by longitude.
looking forward to that challenge being ignored
Last edited: