FLAT EARTH
- Thread starter mcubed
- 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.
What Archimedes measured was displacement. Displacement is a change in position. Archimedes derived information from the way water was displaced using other sources of information that he could externally verify.
The experiment I directed you to does fundamentally the same thing, measuring displacement and inferring the forces acting on the bodies in the experiment using known, observable, measurable characteristics.
The experiment I directed you to does fundamentally the same thing, measuring displacement and inferring the forces acting on the bodies in the experiment using known, observable, measurable characteristics.
K
There is no way of knowing the full extent of Tesla's contribution to our every day modern convenience. Can you imagine what the world would look like had it not been for him? Then again, he had no way of controlling the advancement/use of his work. My understanding is there's some really wicked weapons on hand, based on his discoveries.
P
I can't imagine what it would look like if he had the funding he deserved, and his work wasn't suppressed by those seeking to maintain control and monopolies.
Imagine what a world this would be?
Or what would it be like if he was allowed to have his theories acknowledged and even "proven"? We would be a much healthier people mentally and spiritually if we were taught to see the world the way he did, instead of focusing on the material/physical.
Imagine what a world this would be?
Or what would it be like if he was allowed to have his theories acknowledged and even "proven"? We would be a much healthier people mentally and spiritually if we were taught to see the world the way he did, instead of focusing on the material/physical.
K
I've thought about that too. Maybe it couldn't go that way because the day is nearing the end. Why did they try to erase him from history? Look at those who gave their lives so the Word would be accessible to the masses. Since time began there have been those who gave themselves for mankind. The scriptures say, "of whom the world was not worthy", yet, it was allowed to be. It has to play out till the end.
P
Well that's the big picture reason his work never led to what he envisioned and wanted, but the small picture was his work threatened the monopolies, philosophies, and the agendas of the "ruling class". They used him to serve their own needs and purposes, luckily for us the man only produced Good things so the damage of people using him was minimal.
As far as erasing him from history, his ideas and beliefs threatened the status quo. The man's work stood on its own, and his reputation and credibility were undeniable, so you must erase him entirely because discrediting him is near impossible.
Can you imagine if these words were given attention and consideration?
He said that our known energy sources were too weak to reach the moon, and that a rocket could never function in the extreme temperature of space. In the other one he makes a statement that completely contradicts the globe model.
A man like this, whose words can stand on their own, must be erased.
As far as erasing him from history, his ideas and beliefs threatened the status quo. The man's work stood on its own, and his reputation and credibility were undeniable, so you must erase him entirely because discrediting him is near impossible.
Can you imagine if these words were given attention and consideration?
He said that our known energy sources were too weak to reach the moon, and that a rocket could never function in the extreme temperature of space. In the other one he makes a statement that completely contradicts the globe model.
A man like this, whose words can stand on their own, must be erased.
Last edited:
Luke 17 : 34-36 :
"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.[SUP] [/SUP]Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
Even our Lord and savior hints to us that it's going to be dark in one part of the world when He returns and light in another part of the world. You CANNOT have that with a flat Earth. On a flat Earth, there would be constantly light, all over the world. Any many times, the word WORLD is mentioned in the Scriptures....a world is NOT a flat object. Jupiter, a world, Saturn a world, Venus, a world. It's safe to assume our Lord knows the Earth is round and not a flat disk or plane.
"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.[SUP] [/SUP]Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
Even our Lord and savior hints to us that it's going to be dark in one part of the world when He returns and light in another part of the world. You CANNOT have that with a flat Earth. On a flat Earth, there would be constantly light, all over the world. Any many times, the word WORLD is mentioned in the Scriptures....a world is NOT a flat object. Jupiter, a world, Saturn a world, Venus, a world. It's safe to assume our Lord knows the Earth is round and not a flat disk or plane.
I doubt if you'll get an answer to this. Just like I'm reasonably sure it can't be explained how, after the sun sets in the west, it gets back to the east, (managing to shine on China on the way, without being visible to anyone in the US), in the flat Earth model.
I would also like to know how the Gov't altered all the instruments in both my airplanes so that it appeared I was going around a globular Earth, including a gyro I built myself that was never out of my sight before my last trip around.
I would also like to know how the Gov't altered all the instruments in both my airplanes so that it appeared I was going around a globular Earth, including a gyro I built myself that was never out of my sight before my last trip around.
anyway back to number theory..
((from Wolfram Mathworld))
in other words, number theory cannot be completely proven using number theory. some things must be taken axiomatically.
Seedz got the definition of an axiom wrong, too. he said:
axioms are statements that are given without proof. things that seem obviously true, but aren't formally proven - they are the set of rules used to prove other things.
in Euclidean geometry, for example, he begins by stating 5 things without proof:
Gödel's theorem is stated in the context of number theory, and says that number theory must include axioms as well - it cannot consist entirely of statements in the language of number theory which are all proven using number theory.
Seedz also got this wrong -- he said:
this theorem is definitely not saying that there are contradictions or unknown variables in number theory. it is saying a sufficiently complex system cannot be shown to be self-consistent using only the system itself. the truth of complexity is not self-sufficient: it requires an intervening outside truth. number theory requires faith! just as Euclid found that geometry requires faith: he did not prove that A = B and B = C implies A = C, and this does not mean that A does not equal C, as Seedz said, rather, it means we believe it without proof, finding no proof that it is contradicted.
Formally, Gödel's theorem states, "To every
-consistent recursive class
of formulas, there correspond recursive class-signs
such that neither (
Gen
) nor Neg(
Gen
) belongs to Flg(
), where
is the free variable of
"
(Gödel 1931).
A statement sometimes known as Gödel's second incompleteness theorem states that if number theory is consistent, then a proof of this fact does not exist using the methods of first-order predicate calculus. Stated more colloquially, any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency iff it is inconsistent.
(Gödel 1931).
A statement sometimes known as Gödel's second incompleteness theorem states that if number theory is consistent, then a proof of this fact does not exist using the methods of first-order predicate calculus. Stated more colloquially, any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency iff it is inconsistent.
((from Wolfram Mathworld))
in other words, number theory cannot be completely proven using number theory. some things must be taken axiomatically.
Seedz got the definition of an axiom wrong, too. he said:
axioms are statements that are given without proof. things that seem obviously true, but aren't formally proven - they are the set of rules used to prove other things.
in Euclidean geometry, for example, he begins by stating 5 things without proof:
- First Axiom: Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.
- Second Axiom: If equals are added to equals, the whole are equal.
- Third Axiom: If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.
- Fourth Axiom: Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.
- Fifth Axiom: The whole is greater than the part.
Gödel's theorem is stated in the context of number theory, and says that number theory must include axioms as well - it cannot consist entirely of statements in the language of number theory which are all proven using number theory.
Seedz also got this wrong -- he said:
this theorem is definitely not saying that there are contradictions or unknown variables in number theory. it is saying a sufficiently complex system cannot be shown to be self-consistent using only the system itself. the truth of complexity is not self-sufficient: it requires an intervening outside truth. number theory requires faith! just as Euclid found that geometry requires faith: he did not prove that A = B and B = C implies A = C, and this does not mean that A does not equal C, as Seedz said, rather, it means we believe it without proof, finding no proof that it is contradicted.
i think you need to look up the conversation Niels Bohr had with Albert Einstein. the boxes Einstein proposed. the holes Bohr poked in them. you're kind of taking Einstein's position - determinacy - but spoiler alert, Bohr won the argument.
you cannot know all the facts. Heisenberg & Planck showed us this.
yet the facts are never destroyed. Susskind recently showed us this, proving Hawkings wrong.
did you learn about the observer effect yet?
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
Christians have this kind of 'angry mob with pitchforks' mentality sometimes about science. it's a pity, because God's eternal qualities are clearly seen in what is made - yet somehow we've been convinced that looking into what has been made is 'evil' or 'deceptive.' the Church ought to be knowledgeable about these things, because they reveal God: uncertainty principle? Schrödinger? dude, that is Ecclesiastes 3:11
but here are 'Christians' saying invisible trolls make the moon wax and wane, and being totally wrong about things they thought to impress people with by mentioning, and asking you to believe that the universe is inconsistent and contradictory and without order. a guy who doesn't really even know what an axiom is, wants you to take his word for it, axiomatically. he's going to tell you all about how physics is all wrong, though he doesn't really know much of anything about physics.
we should not be an ignorant people, nor one that is afraid of knowledge. we have answers; the Truth
[/RANT]
sorry should have clarified this -- "iff" in math-speak is short for "if and only if"
((it means a clause is both necessary and sufficient))
so what we are saying, colloquially, is that no formal system sophisticated enough to show self-consistency can only ((by itself, within the confines of that system)) prove itself consistent if it is actually inconsistent.
in Biblical terms, what we are saying is this:
((it means a clause is both necessary and sufficient))
so what we are saying, colloquially, is that no formal system sophisticated enough to show self-consistency can only ((by itself, within the confines of that system)) prove itself consistent if it is actually inconsistent.
in Biblical terms, what we are saying is this:
without faith it is impossible to please Him
i mentioned applying the incompleteness theorem to the entirety of the universe.
what i mean is, take everything in the physical world, and even extend that to all non-corporeal things, all logic, reason, thought and rationale plus all matter and energy, all space and all time. call it a complex, apparently consistent system.
prove it is consistent.
the incompleteness theorem says, "you can't" -- not without appealing to a fundamental Truth that is entirely separate from the universe and from all human thinking and imagination.
"life, the universe and everything" ((sic, Douglas Adams)) requires that God exist
"nihilism" may be raised as an objection to this argument. it may be dismissed on the grounds that nihilism itself cannot exist as a consistent argument without appeal to a non-nihilistic truth: in order to declare all things meaningless and void, nihilism requires that "meaning" has a meaning, which nihilism assumes axiomatically, but the existence of meaning/meaninglessness proves that an external Truth defines the meaning of "meaning" -- ergo, nihilism self-falsifies.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
the observer effect establishes the omnipotent & omnipresent God and the infinite power of Jesus Christ in a somewhat similar way, but i'll wait till Seedz understands what it is before i talk about it here
what i mean is, take everything in the physical world, and even extend that to all non-corporeal things, all logic, reason, thought and rationale plus all matter and energy, all space and all time. call it a complex, apparently consistent system.
prove it is consistent.
the incompleteness theorem says, "you can't" -- not without appealing to a fundamental Truth that is entirely separate from the universe and from all human thinking and imagination.
"life, the universe and everything" ((sic, Douglas Adams)) requires that God exist
"nihilism" may be raised as an objection to this argument. it may be dismissed on the grounds that nihilism itself cannot exist as a consistent argument without appeal to a non-nihilistic truth: in order to declare all things meaningless and void, nihilism requires that "meaning" has a meaning, which nihilism assumes axiomatically, but the existence of meaning/meaninglessness proves that an external Truth defines the meaning of "meaning" -- ergo, nihilism self-falsifies.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
the observer effect establishes the omnipotent & omnipresent God and the infinite power of Jesus Christ in a somewhat similar way, but i'll wait till Seedz understands what it is before i talk about it here
pretty ironic for someone who believes the earth is flat to quote a guy talking about structures that have no relation to reality.
((considering that flat earth contradicts both math and experimental observation))
but y'all are pretty keen on dropping words and making statements that you don't actually comprehend ain't yas?
youtube will do that to a person.
P
pretty ironic for someone who believes the earth is flat to quote a guy talking about structures that have no relation to reality.
((considering that flat earth contradicts both math and experimental observation))
but y'all are pretty keen on dropping words and making statements that you don't actually comprehend ain't yas?
youtube will do that to a person.
The flat earth only is disproven by your false model and false equations, the model of our reality doesn't disprove the theory. The only thing disproven for sure are your false video and images of "outer space", and I guess the globe model too but not as definitively as the CGI.
I don't want to go back and forth, tesla wasn't perfect, but he wasn't completely indoctrinated and deceived either, therefore a threat to the agendas of the "scientific community".
I've got some bad news for you.....footage of the Gemini missions and Apollos couldn't be done with CGI, that technology was NOT available until the late 80's. When I hear you deny deny deny, I think of Peter denying Jesus before all the men and women who accused him. You will constantly deny the truth.