The Fixed Earth

[pogrud]

I never said that EMF was directly responsible for the orbits of planets, I said that EMF is infintely more powerful than gravity.

OK, but in your first post on this thread you wrote: 'I will tell you that the earth is held in place so that it cannot move, and God holds the earth in place not with Gravity, but with Electromagnetic energy.' - this is your clearest explanation for the cause of orbits. You've not said it directly, but neither have you provided a direct explanation.

The earth is emitting a massive EM force field which shields it from deadly solar radiation, this can be observed and measured;

It can be observed an measured. The effective extent of the Earth's magnetosphere is several tens of thousands of kilometres into space. In comparison, the average distance of the moon is ~380,000km, so as I said, EMF may be stronger, but it's affect reduces far more rapidly than gravity.

...Gravity on the other hand is a theoretical proposition that has never been observed, neither can it be measured

As MahogonySnail said, it can be measured. Gravity is just a force which exerts a pull. We have devices to measure this pull. Even the average pair of scales does this!

...it was so inadequate in explaining anything that it was simply replaced with Einstein's theory of curvature of space and reltivity of time...

Newtonian Gravity is still actually fine for the majority of applications. Only limited cases, such as the orbit of Mercury, the affect of black holes, or precise calculations (as in GPS) is it not adequately accurate. Although General Relativity is far more accurate, Newtonian Gravity is still perfectly adequate for most applications. To clarify: Newtonian Gravity is incorrect, however it is more than adequate for anything the average person cares about.

...well either space is flat or it is curved, which one are the Gravitationalists saying is correct?...

As above, the 4 dimensions of space-time are straight for most purposes (in accordance with most of our experiences, and the Newtonian concept of 'straight' space). Only when affected by significant mass does space-time begin to be curved. Likewise, only when travelling at speeds close to the speed of light does the rate of time change (as has been demonstrated by atomic clocks). So unless you're planning any space travel, building your own GPS system or suddenly become massive you can assume space-time is straight.

...Newtonian gravity theory is proven to be false, it cannot explain why objects if dictated by their mass and speed do not continue on their attaction path until they collide.

I assume you're implying something like why doesn't the moon crash into the earth if it's held there by gravity? It's to do with centrifugal force. Say you had an apple on a string, you're spinning it around your head. If the string broke, the apple would continue in a straight line in the direction it was travelling when the string broke, away from the centre of it's 'orbit'. So at anytime, part of this 'centrifugal' force of the apple spinning round is moving round to the next position in the orbit, the other part is balanced in opposing the tension in the string. Since the forces are equal, it stays in a circular orbit. So, applying it to the moon and the earth. If the moon suddently began going faster, it would break the force of gravity of the earth holding it in, and it would fly away, like the apple example. If it suddenly slowed down, the gravity of the earth would began pulling it towards it and they would eventually collide.

...for if space was not Newtonian flat, maybe it is Einstein curved, with a mass causing a dent in space, then space cannot be a absolute vacuum if it can curve, the curvature of space is then dictating the orbit, which would be impossible for the smaller mass must also cause a dent in space and create its own dent.

You're misinterpreting what space (and time are) in the context of vacuums. A vacuum has no matter, but does still have a spatial/temporal dimension. It's like if you were plotting a graph - x and y are your dimensions, you do not have to have something in each space on the graph though. You're quite right with the dent in space-time of the smaller mass - it does create its own dent - your point is though?

In this case only two outcomes are theoretically possible either Einstein's theory leads to the same flaw as Newtons, because the lareger mass has a larger dent do once caught the smaller mass would curve and then screwdrive right into the larger mass gaining velocity as it gets closer to the larger mass, or the smaller mass having enough velocity on it's own straight path through space, falls into the lip of the space-curve dent of the larger mass, but escapes because of it's own momentum, rolling around the edge like a golf ball round the edge of a hole, then spinnig off in another direction.

You're pretty much explained why it does orbit. They are perfectly balanced so it doesn't 'spin off' away or 'screwdrive' in, but continues orbiting.

If you jump out of a plane you will fall straight to earth, you will take the sraightest route possible straight down until you meet the ground and become worm feed!

Basics of Newtonian laws of motion. You could liken this to say throwing a stone off a cliff. You're saying that if you did this, the stone would stop moving forward, the moment you release it and fall straight down. If you try this, it would actually arc, travelling forwards and downwards.

Now the earth is not moving beneath you, that is why all flight paths are based on a non-moving earth! WWII bomber just drop their bombs on the target below, no need to calculate a rotating earth!!!

It's actually because the atmosphere is dragged along with the earth's rotation. Everything is subject to local references. Having said that, flight paths are slightly altered as result of rotation - it's called the Coriolis effect - that's why they tend to be slightly curved.

When out side the earth's atmosphere does a satellite get caught in the 'gravitational pull' of the sun? No, even though the sun's supposed 'gravity' is far greater than the earth it cannot wrestle a aluminium floating can away from the earth!

If it got close enough, it would be 'sucked in'. When satellites are released, they tend to be directed away from things like the sun, they also have their own momentum which would need to be overcome. The Sun's gravity is not strong enough by itself to overcome such forces - it's often too far away. Just like when you're hoovering, only dirt very close to the vacuum gets sucked up - a spider walking the other side of the room wouldn't be affected.

Actually, the gravity of planets are often used to provide an extra boost for voyages in space - Apollo 13, Galileo and Cassini are examples. They get sucked in just enough, to gain a boost and then push off - just as a skateboarder does between 'free wheeling'. This affect is known as a 'gravity assisted' or 'slingshot maneuver' trajectory.

Regarding tides...

...Would you like me to write you out a thesis for you, because it's going to take a while to explain. Look 'Gravity' does not pull the atlantic ocean away from the earth all the while a small seagull glides over the waves on a gentle breeze! Yep, 'Gravity' explains that, sure, heaviness, all about how heavy something is, the moon can pick up an entire ocean and move it but a little feather just flies away in the opposite direction, and of course the big ol' moon has to reach through that 'neutral zone', it has to go neutral and then regain all its heaviness strength and pick up the ocean and suck the earth towards it like a super vacuum cleaner sucking on a ballon!

Not a thesis, but at least some sort of explanation, rather than your purely 'it couldn't be gravity' rhetoric. You obviously didn't read my last post explaining why it's possible. Only a tiny variation of gravity occurs, everything is still very much 'stuck' to earth, so the local gravity experienced by the seagull doesn't really change enough to affect it. One thing you'll notice about water though is that it tends to always try to maintain a level - you generally won't find great peaks or troughs (like hills), so the covering of water around the earth would be fairly equal. The slight pull of the moon, does however create a slight distortion to this otherwise level covering of water. It's only a slight distortion, but on a global scale it's significant - like my charity donation example.

Can you explain what this 'neutral zone' you keep referring to is?

The gravity on earth is dependent upon the mass of the earth. Since the ocean is significant part of the earth's mass, asking for it's weight is a silly question. A better question, would be the mass of the ocean.

Now you are kidding me right? Mass is measured in kilograms!

No, in science mass and weight are different things. Mass is the amount of matter contained, whilst weight is the force something exerts (as a result of gravity). If you went to the Moon with a pair of scales you would have a different weight to that on Earth - a 150 lb person on Earth would weigh 25 lbs on the Moon, their Mass however would be the same. This is why, if there is no gravity (force), you are weightless - although you still have mass! In SI units, mass is measured in kilograms, however weight is measured in Newtons.

So is the bird being pulled or not? Because the ocean is moving, it has a lareger mass, does it not? So by your faulty logic it is not determined by weight or mass, as the bird or a feather can overcome the supposed 'gravitational pull of the moon but the earth bulging crust cannot neaith can an ocean, so the larger mass is weaker???????????? No logic you see behind it and that is why it is taught in school, it is because it is nonsense, you don't really believe that those who control the centre of this universe have any interest in handing you the truth. As the Bible says, God will send 'Strong Delusion".

Why would the ocean have a larger mass because it's moving? Can you explain what you meant by the sentence after that bit, it doesn't read clearly and makes little sense to me.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

It can be observed an measured. The effective extent of the Earth's magnetosphere is several tens of thousands of kilometres into space. In comparison, the average distance of the moon is ~380,000km, so as I said, EMF may be stronger, but it's affect reduces far more rapidly than gravity.

The tides and the cycles of the moon are synchronized, howover what you have been told is 'gravitas' (heaviness) not matter what number set you measure by, it makes no difference, as the moon exerts no 'pull' over the ocean or earth. The concept of the moon sucking the earth's crust towards it so causing a 'bulge' in the earth and sucking entire oceans to and fro, while being cut and half by a neutral zone thereby defying it's own setforward logic, is absurd. The ocean tides are acting in concert with the Earth magneticshere, the light and signs of the moon are tuned to act in concert with this phenomena. Contempory scientists and ocean specialists may be able to now begin to explain this relationship, but I can tell you with all certainity that the moon's 'gravitaional pull' and all given number sets to go with it are false.

As MahogonySnail said, it can be measured. Gravity is just a force which exerts a pull. We have devices to measure this pull. Even the average pair of scales does this!

No the scales would be measuring weight, that is weight of the objects weighed, what you called 'gravitas' is an invisible mystery force that is so far not understood and inadequately explained especially by Newton's Gravity Theory, it has no weight as a force it is weightless and unknown and unmeasured, what you are measuring is the objects themselves, they register a weight, the force acting upon them does not register a weight, so by definition it is incorrect, it should not be called 'gravitas', the force does not have a weight, the objects it acts upon can be measured for weight, mass, density, hardness, etc, but the force cannot be measured by weight.

Although General Relativity is far more accurate, Newtonian Gravity is still perfectly adequate for most applications. To clarify: Newtonian Gravity is incorrect, however it is more than adequate for anything the average person cares about.

That is right, 'Newtonian Gravity is incorrect!' absoluetly it is incorrect and flawed, it is a unproven poorly resolved inadequate theory. You see this is my point, Newtonian Gravity' is only adequate as good lie, it is an excuse, not an explaination, and you know this to be true, it is not acceptable as a Christian to knowingly promote a false concept simply because lessor minds would find it simple. If it's wrong and flawed than it is wrong and flawed, it is not 'oh yea it is incorrect but it's good enough for average people', that is not acceptable for a Christian, and further more the theory seeks to wipe God from the equation, remove God and replace 'weight' as the dictating force, not only is it false, it's a direct assault on God's foundational truth.

I assume you're implying something like why doesn't the moon crash into the earth if it's held there by gravity? It's to do with centrifugal force. Say you had an apple on a string, you're spinning it around your head. If the string broke, the apple would continue in a straight line in the direction it was travelling when the string broke, away from the centre of it's 'orbit'.

The moon isn't attatched to the earth by a string, neither is the earth attatched to the sun by a string so I cannot use that experiment.

So at anytime, part of this 'centrifugal' force of the apple spinning round is moving round to the next position in the orbit, the other part is balanced in opposing the tension in the string. Since the forces are equal, it stays in a circular orbit. So, applying it to the moon and the earth. If the moon suddently began going faster, it would break the force of gravity of the earth holding it in, and it would fly away, like the apple example. If it suddenly slowed down, the gravity of the earth would began pulling it towards it and they would eventually collide.

Cannot work like that, as I said. Either you decide on which flawed system you want to use or not; is it going to be the Newtonian or General Relativity, you cannot use both, Newton's is utterly flawed and incorrect which you yourself have just previously confirmed, you cannot use a theory you know to be incorrect, that would be bearing false witness. So which system are you going to use?

You're misinterpreting what space (and time are) in the context of vacuums.

Well what space is, is not fully comprehended as yet.

A vacuum has no matter, but does still have a spatial/temporal dimension. It's like if you were plotting a graph - x and y are your dimensions, you do not have to have something in each space on the graph though. You're quite right with the dent in space-time of the smaller mass - it does create its own dent - your point is though?

This is only according to Reltivity theory, it is not my understanding of space, either the Gravitationalist under the dictum of the proposed theory cite that space is curved and so mass makes a dent casing orbit or space is straight and a vacuum and 'gravitas' is a seperate force unrelated to curvature of space, it cannot be both, they are opposed as views and theories, although one was invented because the other was failing and flawed, they are still opposed.

You're pretty much explained why it does orbit. They are perfectly balanced so it doesn't 'spin off' away or 'screwdrive' in, but continues orbiting.

Not without another force, you see Einstien's theory is a little more sophisticated then Newton's but it still ends up with the same flaw; it still dosen't explain orbit, and need I mention the variation and speed's of the various orbits, their often inconsistant paths, elliptical, uneven. The observable phenomena is not in fact as you say 'perfectly balanced', it wotuld rather be 'perfectly unbalanced' which leave us at the conclusion that that Einstein space curvature cased by mass dentings is insufficient and unable to explain the force that is casuing orbits to behave in the way that they do.

It's actually because the atmosphere is dragged along with the earth's rotation. Everything is subject to local references. Having said that, flight paths are slightly altered as result of rotation - it's called the Coriolis effect - that's why they tend to be slightly curved.

Oh really? I don't think so.

If it got close enough, it would be 'sucked in'. When satellites are released, they tend to be directed away from things like the sun, they also have their own momentum which would need to be overcome. The Sun's gravity is not strong enough by itself to overcome such forces - it's often too far away. Just like when you're hoovering, only dirt very close to the vacuum gets sucked up - a spider walking the other side of the room wouldn't be affected.

No that does not explain it, have you ever hoovered to find that the dirt goes into orbit around the vacuum cleaner instead of being sucked in.

Actually, the gravity of planets are often used to provide an extra boost for voyages in space - Apollo 13, Galileo and Cassini are examples.

They never voyaged past the Van Allen Radiation belts, those space missions are tax payer funded illusions, like a carnival illusion, their not real, we might as well start arguing whether the Yanks did burn outs on the moon in moon buggies!

They get sucked in just enough, to gain a boost and then push off

Mate, do you take me for a fool, or are you not listening to what you are saying.

- just as a skateboarder does between 'free wheeling'. This affect is known as a 'gravity assisted' or 'slingshot maneuver' trajectory.

LOL, oh yea of course 'just like a skaterboarder', it's called a 'slingshot maneuver' no offence but I have to laugh at that one.

Can you explain what this 'neutral zone' you keep referring to is?

You and the theory of Gravity are the propagators of a supposed 'neutral zone', not me. It is accoding to the theory of gravity itself, so it is that gravity defies it's own setforward laws. For that is your definition of orbit if I accept your Newton theory for the moment, instead of the einstein one, even still orbit is the place where the earth gravity no longer exerts a pull, in this same place the sun does not either exert a 'pull' see they would be proposed to be equal so it is said orbit results in relation to initial velocity. I must be said under Newtonian Gravity that their is a neutral ant-gravity zone because the satellites are not falling to earth neither are they ending up on the surface of the sun. Now Geocentriciam has an answer to this, which is not a gravity 'neutral zone'.

No, in science mass and weight are different things. Mass is the amount of matter contained, whilst weight is the force something exerts (as a result of gravity). If you went to the Moon with a pair of scales you would have a different weight to that on Earth - a 150 lb person on Earth would weigh 25 lbs on the Moon, their Mass however would be the same. This is why, if there is no gravity (force), you are weightless - although you still have mass! In SI units, mass is measured in kilograms, however weight is measured in Newtons.

No you are not weightless, you still have the same weight. See how you state 'this is why, if there is no gravity force (force) you are weightless - although you still have mass' that is a false statement, it does not comply with the varios theories you are adherring to. Mass is measured by weight in the context of the proposed theory, I retain in space the same weight, I am not weightless as I still retain the same mass, that is why gravity meaning heaviness in Latin is not describing the invisible force that is suspending me in space. Now also consider where you are in space because according to your theory you must be in a gravity neutral zone, if so, where is this gravity neutral zone?

Why would the ocean have a larger mass because it's moving? Can you explain what you meant by the sentence after that bit, it doesn't read clearly and makes little sense to me.

The moon's 'gravitational pull' is supposedly sucking an entire whole ocean towards it and lifting up the earth'c crust like a vacuum cleaner sucking on a rubber ball, but a seagull defies it, in fact the atmosphere, the oxygen and atmospheric gases that are holding up the seagull are not sucked towards the moon???????? See the theory is hopelessly flawed, the orbit of the moon has no relationship to the ocean tides the moon acts in concert with the tides, the oceans themselves have a very strong relationship to the magneticsphere of the Earth.

 

[pogrud]

The tides and the cycles of the moon are synchronized, howover what you have been told is 'gravitas' (heaviness) not matter what number set you measure by...

Where did you get this definition of 'gravitas' from? - I've never mentioned the term. The only definition I know of it, or can find in any dictionary or encylopedia is with meaning 'serious', 'important', 'formal' or 'solemn'. In any case, what do you suggest causes this 'heaviness'? I suppose you subscribe to Aristotle's school of thought that it's similar to why a stone falls - because it has 'falling qualities', or helium rises because it has 'rising qualities'. Can you also explain why weight varies from sea level to high altitude?

The ocean tides are acting in concert with the Earth magneticshere, the light and signs of the moon are tuned to act in concert with this phenomena.

How is the moon tuned in to this if the Earth's magnetosphere only extends a fraction of the way to the moon? Also, assuming tides were a 'design feature', what purpose do they serve?

As MahogonySnail said, it can be measured. Gravity is just a force which exerts a pull. We have devices to measure this pull. Even the average pair of scales does this!

No the scales would be measuring weight, that is weight of the objects weighed, what you called 'gravitas' is an invisible mystery force that is so far not understood and inadequately explained especially by Newton's Gravity Theory, it has no weight as a force it is weightless and unknown and unmeasured, what you are measuring is the objects themselves, they register a weight, the force acting upon them does not register a weight, so by definition it is incorrect, it should not be called 'gravitas', the force does not have a weight, the objects it acts upon can be measured for weight, mass, density, hardness, etc, but the force cannot be measured by weight.

Yes, scales measure weight. Weight is a result of the mass (the amount of matter) of an object and the force exerted upon it (gravity). Therefore, if you can weigh something and it's mass is constant, you are effectively measuring the force of gravity. That's why things weigh different amounts at different altitudes - the force of gravity is different. This is the basics of Newtonian Mechanics.

You say both mass and weight can be measured. According to your understanding, what is the difference between the two?

That is right, 'Newtonian Gravity is incorrect!' absoluetly it is incorrect and flawed, it is a unproven poorly resolved inadequate theory. You see this is my point, Newtonian Gravity' is only adequate as good lie, it is an excuse, not an explaination, and you know this to be true, it is not acceptable as a Christian to knowingly promote a false concept simply because lessor minds would find it simple. If it's wrong and flawed than it is wrong and flawed, it is not 'oh yea it is incorrect but it's good enough for average people', that is not acceptable for a Christian, and further more the theory seeks to wipe God from the equation, remove God and replace 'weight' as the dictating force, not only is it false, it's a direct assault on God's foundational truth.

The same old talk, with no evidence to back it up. I think this is the crux of the matter is that you believe gravity displaces the need for God. Can you explain why you believe Gravity wipes God from the equation? Most major branches of Christianity have gotten their head around that it doesn't.

If Newtonian Theory isn't good enough for the average Christian, try teaching the average high school kid General Relativity. I very much doubt the majority would have the maths knowledge to understand it - I'd be surprised if most University graduates were capable either. The basics of Newtonian Mechanics can be tested by the average person with a limited knowledge of maths. They can throw a ball into the air and calculate where it will land or how long it will be in the air, or work out how much it would weigh on top of a mountain.

The moon isn't attatched to the earth by a string, neither is the earth attatched to the sun by a string so I cannot use that experiment.

No, but it's an example of how the system works. The string has tension, the forces pulling either end of the string are balanced - thats why the string is taut and not loose or broken. The force on one end of the string, is like the pull of earth's gravity on the moon, and the other is the moon's on the earth AND a component of the centrifugal force.

A vacuum has no matter, but does still have a spatial/temporal dimension. It's like if you were plotting a graph - x and y are your dimensions, you do not have to have something in each space on the graph though. You're quite right with the dent in space-time of the smaller mass - it does create its own dent - your point is though?

This is only according to Reltivity theory, it is not my understanding of space, either the Gravitationalist under the dictum of the proposed theory cite that space is curved and so mass makes a dent casing orbit or space is straight and a vacuum and 'gravitas' is a seperate force unrelated to curvature of space, it cannot be both, they are opposed as views and theories, although one was invented because the other was failing and flawed, they are still opposed.

OK, you've misunderstood the theories then. I've got a fairly decent grip on both theories, I've studied Physics at University. General Relativity does not require an ether as you're suggesting. Space and time are dimensions - they don't require a series of white lines/curves to be marked out, they can be empty (i.e. have vacuums). As I said before: unless you're planning any space travel, building your own GPS system or suddenly become massive you can assume space-time is straight.

...need I mention the variation and speed's of the various orbits, their often inconsistant paths, elliptical, uneven. The observable phenomena is not in fact as you say 'perfectly balanced', it wotuld rather be 'perfectly unbalanced' which leave us at the conclusion that that Einstein space curvature cased by mass dentings is insufficient and unable to explain the force that is casuing orbits to behave in the way that they do.

If you want a more detailed explanation, you could describe all orbits as elliptical - a circle is one case of an ellipse. Such orbits can be described by Kepler's model, which still uses the Newtonian principles described before. The initial position and velocity of the motion influences the path taken as well as the slight affect of other planets. If it were all made up as you're alleging, why would there be a debate about ellipical orbits, why not just say they are all perfectly circular and the same speed?

It's actually because the atmosphere is dragged along with the earth's rotation. Everything is subject to local references. Having said that, flight paths are slightly altered as result of rotation - it's called the Coriolis effect - that's why they tend to be slightly curved.

Oh really? I don't think so.

You don't think so based on what? The Foucault Pendulum and the weaker affect of gravity at the equator is evidence that the earth is rotating. Not seeing clouds travelling past at ~1000 mph, and not being able to just 'hover' in a helicopter whilst the earth rotates below indicates that the atmosphere is also being dragged along.

No that does not explain it, have you ever hoovered to find that the dirt goes into orbit around the vacuum cleaner instead of being sucked in.

It's nothing to do with the orbit. It is an example why the Sun doesn't just suck everything towards it. It's too far away, and it's gravitational pull is too weak (since it reduces with distance).

You and the theory of Gravity are the propagators of a supposed 'neutral zone', not me. It is accoding to the theory of gravity itself, so it is that gravity defies it's own setforward laws.

I think you've misunderstood it wherever you picked it up from. It's not that the Earth's gravity suddenly stops half way to the moon and starts again, it probably refers to the point where the pull of the Moon's gravity is equal to the pull of the Earth's gravity. An object at that point would be equally drawn to both so not go anywhere. If it was closer either side, it would be attracted either to the Moon or Earth, depending upon which is stronger. At this point, the gravity of both still exist, they are just balanced. Likewise with the orbit - the Earth's gravity is balanced with the Moon's Gravity and it's Centrifugal Force.

No you are not weightless, you still have the same weight. See how you state 'this is why, if there is no gravity force (force) you are weightless - although you still have mass' that is a false statement, it does not comply with the varios theories you are adherring to. Mass is measured by weight in the context of the proposed theory, I retain in space the same weight, I am not weightless as I still retain the same mass, that is why gravity meaning heaviness in Latin is not describing the invisible force that is suspending me in space. Now also consider where you are in space because according to your theory you must be in a gravity neutral zone, if so, where is this gravity neutral zone?

There is a difference between general language and science. In general language, we use mass and weight as the same thing - but we rarely experience significant variation in gravity so they could be understood to be the same thing. When we do consider how weight varies - at altitude, at latitude or on different planets, we know our mass isn't changing, so mass and weight must be seperate.

The moon's 'gravitational pull' is supposedly sucking an entire whole ocean towards it and lifting up the earth'c crust like a vacuum cleaner sucking on a rubber ball, but a seagull defies it, in fact the atmosphere, the oxygen and atmospheric gases that are holding up the seagull are not sucked towards the moon????????

Think about it more like this: the moon is pulling on the whole earth all the time. However, because the back of the earth is further away than the front, the pull from the moon will be stronger at the front than the back. This difference in 'pulls' causes the water to move SLIGHTLY from the back to the front. The crust is fairly solid, so unlike the water, it's not likely to be distorted much.

I don't mean this as a personal attack but I'm curious as to your general outlook towards knowledge and science. I get the impression that you feel to enquire about anything outside of the bible is almost an affront to God's wisdom. Do you think there is value to any knowledge outside of the bible?

 

[pogrud]

Cup-of-Ruin, I found a site you'll probably love:

http://www.fixedearth.com/

 

[Astronut]

Well cup, I see you've failed to explain how my telescope is "simulating" images of galaxies. I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

They never voyaged past the Van Allen Radiation belts, those space missions are tax payer funded illusions, like a carnival illusion, their not real, we might as well start arguing whether the Yanks did burn outs on the moon in moon buggies!

Amateurs have observed deep space missions well beyond the van allen belts.
Amateur video of Deep Impact hitting comet tempel 1:
http://www.oldstarlight.com/All pag.../Deep_Impact_1.5 hours_5_arc_minute_field.avi
Same event:
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/deepimpact/tempeltrail.jpg
Another animation of the same event:
http://www.noao.edu/news/images/tempelfinal.gif

Your accusations of "carnival illusions" are wrong.

 

[worldlover]

i agree that the bible is true while ours is not accurate so we better read bible to see the truth not just made by humans

 

[Gavinluke]

The Bible isn't a science text book. It doesn't explain things we need science to understand now.

 

[Slepsog4]

Every subject the Bible addresses it speaks the truth on. The Bible does not contradict the Laws of Nature, the same God wrote both. The Bible does not contradict the true facts of science. The Bible is at odds with some of the theories of man, esp. the theory of evolution.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Well cup, I see you've failed to explain how my telescope is "simulating" images of galaxies. I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

Amateurs have observed deep space missions well beyond the van allen belts.
Amateur video of Deep Impact hitting comet tempel 1:
http://www.oldstarlight.com/All pag.../Deep_Impact_1.5 hours_5_arc_minute_field.avi
Same event:
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/deepimpact/tempeltrail.jpg
Another animation of the same event:
http://www.noao.edu/news/images/tempelfinal.gif

Your accusations of "carnival illusions" are wrong.

That is just a light in the sky, it is not happening in deep space.

I asked you for your telescope specs, make and components details etc, don't worry about other fake videos, lets look at your fake pics first.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Every subject the Bible addresses it speaks the truth on. The Bible does not contradict the Laws of Nature, the same God wrote both. The Bible does not contradict the true facts of science. The Bible is at odds with some of the theories of man, esp. the theory of evolution.

I agree, as long as the bible is interpreted correctly in such matters. The bible is not robust against any idiots who interpret it. There is very little in the bible which deals with scientific fact. Yet, if it should intend to speak re: scientific matters, coming from God it would be 100% accurate. The literal 7 day creation is in this category. The fact that man actually came from dust, and Eve came from adam's rib. Understanding of the exact nature of the universe, probably isn't however. Because there is so much similar to the Egyptian or Babylonian beliefs around it, there is strong chance they are simply drawing from the contemporary secular view at the time. The use of the terms such as firmanents, implies a hard solid dome above the earth in which everything is contained. The "water above". Well since space flight we know the atmosphere is far from solid. Just one example. Some have thought that it was an actual frozen ice sheet suspended above the earth, which melted as the earth heated up, causing rain. Anyway, lots of theories, few proven facts.

 

[Grimaldus]

After visiting another forum, I have deduced that everyone here is absolutely wrong. The world is flat.

 

[worldlover]

The Bible isn't a science text book. It doesn't explain things we need science to understand now.

maybe it's not a science text book but bible explains everything and where did it all began

 

[MahogonySnail]

After visiting another forum, I have deduced that everyone here is absolutely wrong. The world is flat.

Finally, someone who takes the bible literally.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

After visiting another forum, I have deduced that everyone here is absolutely wrong. The world is flat.

Isaiah 40:21-22

"Will ye not know? Will ye not hear? Has it not been told to you of old? Have ye not known the foundations of the earth? It is He that comprehends the circle of the Earth."

 

[pogrud]

maybe it's not a science text book but bible explains everything and where did it all began

This is getting out of the realms of this thread. I'd like to hear your viewpoint though, do you think you could reply to the Evolution thread?

Isaiah 40:21-22

"Will ye not know? Will ye not hear? Has it not been told to you of old? Have ye not known the foundations of the earth? It is He that comprehends the circle of the Earth."

We're getting off topic again. I'd love to hear your reply to my questions above on EMF, space-time and the tides. To answer this quote though, isn't a circle a 2D flat shape?

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

We're getting off topic again. I'd love to hear your reply to my questions above on EMF, space-time and the tides. To answer this quote though, isn't a circle a 2D flat shape?

My apologies, I did reply but I got logged out and lost what I wrote, so I will reply again in the next day or so, time permitting.

Now concerning Isaiah 40:22, when we read scripture there are different levels of understanding, so for example a sunday school child may be taught a very basic level and the Bible accomodates this, but there is than a deeper level, and then still deeper and so it goes on layer after layer, an independent Theologian would have a more complex understanding than say a semi-literate who has just flicked through a couple of pages. This is a Science and an Art and it's called Hermeneutics.

Job 26:10

"He has encompassed the face of the water by an appointed ordinance, until the end of light and darkness." Greek Septuagint

"He has compassed the waters with bounds" King James Version

"He has described a circle upon the face of the waters" Revised Standard Version

Isaiah 40:22

"The Creator sits above the circle of the earth". KJV

"Have you not grasped this, since the world began?- that He sits over the round of the Earth" Moffatt's Translation


Basically humans have been able to observe the roundness the earth by watching the horizon line, if we encompass the horizon line it seen as being a sphere, whichever way we look, and whichever distance you walk in the observation is the same, it is then concluded that the earth is a sphere, because there is no other way to "describe a circle upon the face of waters" or "compass the waters with bounds" for the human can observe how a ship disappears on the horizon line, it does not take too much abstract thought to work out, we must begin from the human perspective so phenomenologically, so keeping consistancy we interpret the Bible with the Bible, the result in the end of course is that the earth is shaped geometrically as a sphere.

 

[MahogonySnail]

isn't a circle a 2D flat shape?

Exactly, a circle is not a sphere. The authors could have used the Hebrew word for ball instead of circle, if they intended a sphere.

This is consistent with a circular flat earth and a solid hemispherical dome firmanents which is what the bible seems to describe in a number of verses. A picture:

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen 1:7 describes the firmanent above ,and firmanents below. This is consistent with the picture above. Bit hard to fit the verses to a spherical earth.

The word for firmanent is raqiya meaning the visible vault of the sky, and is derived from the word riqqua which means "beaten out".


The bible authors believed the sky was hard, and a solid sky-dome above the earth:

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, whichis strong, and as a molten looking glass?

In ancient times brass objects were beaten into shape on an anvil. Molten looking glass is obviously a brass mirror.


The ability to take hold of the edges of the earth and shake it (a sphere does not have ends or edges)

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?


The earth is flattened out just as clay is flattened when impressed with a seal.

Job 38:14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.



That satan who took Jesus up a high mountain and able to see all the kingdoms of the world, only possible with a flat earth:

Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;


That a very tall tree can be seen to all the end of the earth, not possible with a spherical earth:

Dan 4:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
Dan 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Geocentricists might believe in a spherical earth which is from 4th centuary natural philosphers of classical Greece, not the bible. Christianity has traditionally believed the earth was spherical and never flat (except according to the "flat earth myth") because of the Greek philosophical influences. Yet the bible, particularly the old testament, in a strict and literal interpretation shows it is flat. This is consistent with the similarity in views which the Israelite's neighbours (and the places where they were held in slavery or exile), Egyptians, Babylonians etc held about a flat earth.

 

[Astronut]

That is just a light in the sky, it is not happening in deep space.

It's a comet and yes it is happening in deep space.

I asked you for your telescope specs, make and components details etc, don't worry about other fake videos, lets look at your fake pics first.

I answered you a page ago. If you had bothered to read before posting you'd know that already. Neither I nor my fellow amateur astronomers are faking pictures, and I highly doubt any sane individual will be convinced by such a ridiculous argument.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

[/size]
It's a comet and yes it is happening in deep space.


I know it's a comet, I said meaning manned space shuttles, a comet is hardly man - made and piloted!

I answered you a page ago. If you had bothered to read before posting you'd know that already. Neither I nor my fellow amateur astronomers are faking pictures, and I highly doubt any sane individual will be convinced by such a ridiculous argument.

Yes OK I see.

Now I would have to initially reject your SLR digital photography as being fake straight away. Unlike terrestrial digital photography where instant results are displayed "digital astrophotography often requires computer post-processing before the results can be viewed."

Digital images can be brightened & manipulated in a computer to adjust colour and increase the contrast. More sophisticated techniques involve capturing multiple images to composite together in an additive process, as well as using image processing.

We would need to have a look at your photo in detail and find out what image processing you have done. The one you displayed earlier looks fake and it is labeled incorrectly and the distance is incorrect.

In the case of your telescope, do you have 'deep sky imager'?

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Exactly, a circle is not a sphere. The authors could have used the Hebrew word for ball instead of circle, if they intended a sphere.

It is a Prophet of God speaking, it's not an base instruction manual on how to drive a car, Holy Scripture is not written so that a semi-literate fool can get a grasp of it..."the world is a ball", Isaiah is not preaching to a bunch of goons with 4th grade mentality, he is preaching to men who are intellectual giants compared to us, you think Isaiah is stupid, just some country hick with a screw loose! Can I just say the 'Snail, do you realise that Isaiah most probably does not want you to understand what he is saying, it is not intended for the profane, it is intended to spark the inspired. How do you expect it to read- like the back of box of cornflakes. If he said 'ball', you would probably say "Isaiah thinks that the earth is a rubber ball, what idiot, LOL", that is what a profane person would say.

"It is he that comprehends the circle of the earth"

"earth" = erets....

If I compare Koine Greek and Hebrew "circle" in Greek gyros, in Hebrew - huwg, when one studies these two words and compares them because as the Bible says Truth is established in the mouth of two witnesses, I get the English concept of 'to encompass'
That is what linguistic investigation will reveal, so now I know that something is being encompassed, what? the earth - erets, does not actually mean in this instance that Isaiah is speaking of the entire planet and all it contains, same with the Greek Septuagint, actually the Greek uses different words to describe the surface of the earth and the globe of the earth, so I find in Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible means the surface of the earth has been encompassed! There is no better way to destroy any flat earth theory than what Isaiah just testified, you cannot do it in so few well chosen words. But he also adds "he that comprehends"...do you comprehend this 'Snail?

And Isaiah lived some 300 years before the likes of Pythagoras by the way.

Gen 1:7 describes the firmanent above ,and firmanents below. This is consistent with the picture above. Bit hard to fit the verses to a spherical earth.

The word for firmanent is raqiya meaning the visible vault of the sky, and is derived from the word riqqua which means "beaten out".

Please stop mutilating Genesis, you cannot understand one sentence of Isaiah how can you possibly comprehend Genesis???

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?


The earth is flattened out just as clay is flattened when impressed with a seal.

Job 38:14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

You dont know who Job is do you?

Dan 4:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
Dan 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Have you ever seen a tree grow up into heaven???
It's a DREAM! Do you just pretend to be stupid 'Snail?