“Olber’s Paradox” states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, “Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.” In fact Olber’s “Paradox” is no more a paradox than George Airy’s experiment was a “failure.” Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.
Is The Earth Flat Or Round?
- Thread starter seed_time_harvest
- 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.
The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.
-
1
- Show all
Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around
the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.
the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.
If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west. In actual fact, however, whenever this has been tested, vertically-fired cannonballs shoot upwards an average of 14 seconds ascending, 14 seconds descending, and fall back to the ground no more than 2 feet away from the cannon, often directly back into the muzzle.
-
1
- Show all
People give answers like this because they have been trained since birth to "not question the authority" and accept whatever they are taught as truth - without performing any actual [real true] critical thinking.
Even the [so-called] "critical thinking" that is being taught today to the younger folks is not actually [real true] critical thinking.
(Or 'critical thinking' in any good sense of the words, for that matter.)
And, a partial proof of this rests in the following illustration.
The time difference between my post and yours was ~15 minutes.
During that ~15 minutes:
~ the time that passed before you read my post
~ the time that passed while you read my post
~ the time that passed while you watched the video (10:48 - assuming you actually watched the whole thing)
~ the time that passed while you composed your post, did research for the content, and submitted it
How much time was spent actually seriously considering the content of the video presentation?
How much time was spent watching the video presentation?
Did you actually watch any of it at all?
Did you actually think about it at all?
If not - are you afraid that if you did (watch and think), you might discover some truth about the world you live in that would be 'uncomfortable'?
Where you internally prompted to reciprocate and utilize the play-your-tape method that you have been taught all of your life?
NOW - had I determined that you had sufficient time to [actually] watch the video and seriously consider it - I might be inclined to think that your reply was drawn from [real true] critical thinking rather than the play-your-tape reaction that is so common among people today.
Everyone has a "quick-draw" answer. And, yes - sometimes it comes from a well-reasoned-out thought process beforehand. However, when you have barely had time to watch a video - and then give a reply that begs the question as to whether you even watched any part of it at all - well - it is not very convincing with regard to 'critical thinking' versus the play-your-tape method.
"Just saying..."
Even the [so-called] "critical thinking" that is being taught today to the younger folks is not actually [real true] critical thinking.
(Or 'critical thinking' in any good sense of the words, for that matter.)
And, a partial proof of this rests in the following illustration.
The time difference between my post and yours was ~15 minutes.
During that ~15 minutes:
~ the time that passed before you read my post
~ the time that passed while you read my post
~ the time that passed while you watched the video (10:48 - assuming you actually watched the whole thing)
~ the time that passed while you composed your post, did research for the content, and submitted it
How much time was spent actually seriously considering the content of the video presentation?
How much time was spent watching the video presentation?
Did you actually watch any of it at all?
Did you actually think about it at all?
If not - are you afraid that if you did (watch and think), you might discover some truth about the world you live in that would be 'uncomfortable'?
Where you internally prompted to reciprocate and utilize the play-your-tape method that you have been taught all of your life?
NOW - had I determined that you had sufficient time to [actually] watch the video and seriously consider it - I might be inclined to think that your reply was drawn from [real true] critical thinking rather than the play-your-tape reaction that is so common among people today.
Everyone has a "quick-draw" answer. And, yes - sometimes it comes from a well-reasoned-out thought process beforehand. However, when you have barely had time to watch a video - and then give a reply that begs the question as to whether you even watched any part of it at all - well - it is not very convincing with regard to 'critical thinking' versus the play-your-tape method.
"Just saying..."
-
1
- Show all
There's no need for nose dipping when Velocity, Gravity, and Centrifugal
force keep aircraft where they belong without altitude corrections-- the exact
same forces keep GPS satellites and the international space station going
around the Earth without altitude corrections: the Moon too.
NOTE: Its come to my attention recently that flat-earth folks are not content
with the laws of gravity as most every other educated person knows them.
_
force keep aircraft where they belong without altitude corrections-- the exact
same forces keep GPS satellites and the international space station going
around the Earth without altitude corrections: the Moon too.
NOTE: Its come to my attention recently that flat-earth folks are not content
with the laws of gravity as most every other educated person knows them.
_
I did watch the video, Gary. And I have watched several videos by Eric Dubay. In most of them, the claims he makes and his "reasoning" are utterly stupid. I did not keep a list, so I cannot tell you specifically which videos they were, and I'm not particularly inclined to go look them up so I can provide specifics.
The items RaceRunner has recently posted just show that he has no understanding of physics, particularly inertia (#2005, #2006), nor of the magnitude of space (#2004).
I do understand why people want to believe the earth is flat, with a dome over it. It's because that is more or less how the Bible portrays it. See the image I posted above, or do a Google search for "ancient near east cosmology." The Bible is not a science book, it is not scientifically accurate. For the ancients, the earth WAS flat (in their understanding). They had no concept of the universe, no concept of stars being hundreds, thousands, or millions of light years away. God frequently works with people according to their understanding of things, and that is why some things in the Bible are described the way they are.
The items RaceRunner has recently posted just show that he has no understanding of physics, particularly inertia (#2005, #2006), nor of the magnitude of space (#2004).
I do understand why people want to believe the earth is flat, with a dome over it. It's because that is more or less how the Bible portrays it. See the image I posted above, or do a Google search for "ancient near east cosmology." The Bible is not a science book, it is not scientifically accurate. For the ancients, the earth WAS flat (in their understanding). They had no concept of the universe, no concept of stars being hundreds, thousands, or millions of light years away. God frequently works with people according to their understanding of things, and that is why some things in the Bible are described the way they are.
Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.
If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph then North/South facing cannons should establish a control while East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others while West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer. In actual fact, however, regardless of which direction cannons are fired, the distance covered is always the same.
If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph, then the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph should never be able to reach its Eastward destinations before they come speeding up from behind! Likewise Westward destinations should be arrived at thrice the speed, but this is not the case.
You don't understand inertia. When a cannonball is sitting in the cannon before it's fired, it is moving the exact same speed as the earth. If a cannonball is fired straight up, it continues moving the same speed as the earth, which is why it lands close to the place where it was fired from.
-
1
- Show all
