[Lyuhu3hu3]

<<< Retard Blathering Removed - Admin >>>

[Mark L. Snyde, PhD]

Originally Posted by Lyuhu3hu3

Oi mãe...! To no épico off>all

If you have something to say, please use God's English, and please post an introduction in the Introductions sub-forum so that we may know your intent.

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by Lyuhu3hu3

<<< Retard Blathering Removed - Admin >>>

Sorry friend, no one here (except apparently, you) speaks retarded.

[Infinity]

Originally Posted by Mark L. Snyde, PhD

Another argument that can be made for a flat Earth is to observe that our weight does not decrease rapidly as we move up, such as in an airplane or on a mountain.

Now, a physicist is going to tell you that Newton's universal law of gravity states that the gravitational force between two objects varies inversely as the square of the distance between them, obeying the so-called inverse square law of radiation.

Anyone who knows a bit about differential calculus can attest to the fact that such a relation decreases very rapidly, in fact this rate of change is an inverse cubic relationship via the power rule for differentiation.

Hence, if the Earth were round, our weight would decrease very rapidly as we gain altitude. But, if you take your trusty bathroom scale with you on an airplane you will find your weight is the same as it was on the ground, and therefore we conclude that the force of gravity is constant.

Using a bit of integral calculus, it is easy to show that the only geometry that gives rise to a constant gravitational field is a flat one. It's very elementary.

Therefore, we are led to conclude that the Earth is flat.

Ooohhh... Ooooohhh...
Could I please ask that you post your integral calculus analysis of this? You keep mentioning calculus but strangely don't actually show any.

I could use a chuckle, and I can use it as an example by pointing out the errors to my clients/students.

[Mark L. Snyde, PhD]

Originally Posted by Infinity

Ooohhh... Ooooohhh...
Could I please ask that you post your integral calculus analysis of this? You keep mentioning calculus but strangely don't actually show any.

I could use a chuckle, and I can use it as an example by pointing out the errors to my clients/students.

Show me where you are stuck in this very basic calculus problem.

[Infinity]

Originally Posted by Mark L. Snyde, PhD

Show me where you are stuck in this very basic calculus problem.

You haven't even presented your integral calculus analysis. You might want to start by doing that first.

[Mark L. Snyde, PhD]

Originally Posted by Infinity

You haven't even presented your integral calculus analysis. You might want to start by doing that first.

A mathematician says "It can be shown" or "it is obvious" for things that the reader should be able to easily show himself.

I am asking where you are stuck in doing this for yourself. Show me your attempt so I can see where you are at mathematically.

[Infinity]

Originally Posted by Mark L. Snyde, PhD

A mathematician says "It can be shown" or "it is obvious" for things that the reader should be able to easily show himself.

I am asking where you are stuck in doing this for yourself. Show me your attempt so I can see where you are at mathematically.

If you want to go down that route, then I shall say I'm completely stuck. Please show me, and the 99% of scientists, how calculus proves the Earth is flat. We could have finished this argument if you just gave the mathematical proof, but you haven't. I wonder why?

[Mark L. Snyde, PhD]

Originally Posted by Infinity

If you want to go down that route, then I shall say I'm completely stuck. Please show me, and the 99% of scientists, how calculus proves the Earth is flat. We could have finished this argument if you just gave the mathematical proof, but you haven't. I wonder why?

If you can't even begin, then you know nothing of the calculus, and my demonstration would be wasted on you. However, here is a site that gives the rather elementary proof:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm

Now, you may object, saying this result holds true for an infinite sheet only, and this is correct. However, in order for people to have the illusion of "circumnavigating the globe", God must have in place "wrap-around zones" at the world's edges, such that when you cross these zones your location instantaneously and seamlessly becomes that at the opposite edge. In effect, a location can be described by the Heaviside step-function. Now, gravity can be felt across these boundaries, so the effect is that of an infinitely large sheet.

Now, this isn't necessarily the way things work, but this model is in agreement with observation, but more importantly, with Holy Scripture. It preserves the flatness of the Earth as given in The Bible, explains the constant force of gravity, and allows for circumnavigation.

[Infinity]

Originally Posted by Mark L. Snyde, PhD

If you can't even begin, then you know nothing of the calculus, and my demonstration would be wasted on you. However, here is a site that gives the rather elementary proof:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm

Now, you may object, saying this result holds true for an infinite sheet only, and this is correct. However, in order for people to have the illusion of "circumnavigating the globe", God must have in place "wrap-around zones" at the world's edges, such that when you cross these zones your location instantaneously and seamlessly becomes that at the opposite edge. In effect, a location can be described by the Heaviside step-function. Now, gravity can be felt across these boundaries, so the effect is that of an infinitely large sheet.

Now, this isn't necessarily the way things work, but this model is in agreement with observation, but more importantly, with Holy Scripture. It preserves the flatness of the Earth as given in The Bible, explains the constant force of gravity, and allows for circumnavigation.

Nothing to do with the earth -- it's about the gravitational effect of an infinite flat plane. In other words, a thought theory that can't be demonstrated in reality. Interesting in its way, but the thing is, our 4-dimensional universe is NOT an infinite flat plane. I think if you're going to invoke magic in your calculations, as assuming an infinite plane with "wrap around zones" surely is, you're doing something fundamentally wrong.

"3 + magic = whatever confirms my preconceived notions".

It's not a great way to do science. You say you have a PhD - I'm scared to ask what in. It's not in agreement with ANY observation. This debate was forever closed when we managed to circumnavigate, mathematically calculate and when we actually went into space and SAW THE EARTH.

Guess what? It wasn't flat.

Pretty much everybody stopped believing the Flat Earth Hypothesis since ancient Greece when they figured out the true shape and size and even managed to calculate the planets radius.

Talking about the page you have given, first of all, using Euclidean geometry to measure distances on the surface of Earth fails miserably. To measure distances on the Earth, you require a non-Euclidean spherical metric, because the Earth is a sphere (well, spheroid; it's slightly flatter towards the poles due to the Earth's rotation about its axis). So, even if we had no pictures of the earth from space, we'd still be able to say that the Earth was not flat because of it's non-Euclidean surface.

What you have seen on the web page is an example of applying the Schwarzchild metric to a 'sphere' of infinite radius. A few point to clarify:

The Schwarzchild metric determines the event horizon of a non-rotating sphere of radius R in the special case R = GM/c^2
Here M is the mass of the sphere
c is the the speed of light
G is a gravitational constant

In other words, it measures the radius of a hypothetical non-rotating black hole. Black holes rotate and so a different metric is used. As R tends to infinity, the curvature tends to zero - ie flat. This is what this web page was referring to. It says nothing about the Earth being flat. Nor about the Earth having an infinite radius. Its radius is about 638, 000 km.

So, sorry mate. The Bible does not express the physics of the world correctly.

[Mark L. Snyde, PhD]

I guess I should have taken you by the hand and highlighted the portion of the page pertaining to the infinite flat sheet.

So, you think the author of The Holy Bible, the Creator of the universe itself some 6,000 years ago, does not accurately describe the universe He designed?

So, you would rather put your faith in a handful of men than in God Almighty?

To you sir, I say, checkmate. Enjoy your eternity in hell.

[Elijah Mee, PhD]

Originally Posted by Infinity

So, even if we had no pictures of the earth from space, we'd still be able to say that the Earth was not flat because of it's non-Euclidean surface.

You actually believe the atheist liberal psuedo-scientists who claim that we've gone into space? We know that it's impossible to go into "space" because, in order to do so, one would have to breach the firmament of Earth and go "through" Heaven.

Does this really sound likely to you? Or does it sound far more likely that some guys got together with a camera and faked the whole thing? The higher-ups at NASA were worried about their lack of progress, especially given the billions of taxpayer dollars diverted from worthier causes like blowing up heathens in faraway countries, so they did something about it. They were just as intellectually dishonest as you, friend.

So I leave you with this to prove my point about the astronomical geography of Earth:

Genesis 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

[Oceans676]

I'm so excited I found this thread! I'm definitely going to use this in my sons curriculum (I've recently decided home-schooling is the only way to guarantee a good education in today's world).

[jaf0faj]

Jump: I jumped up in a train going 100 mph and landed in the same spot! I guess the back-of-the-truck example fails because of air drag! Hey, that makes a whole lot of sense... If you jump up off the ground in 100mph winds, you'll move too! The winds must be from the Earth rotating!

Blow: my piece of paper stuck to the underside of the balloon from static cling. I guess that forces can hold two bodies together! I know that in this case it was static electricity, but I couldn't cut the paper small enough (smaller than the paper's width by several orders of magnitude) to the same scale as human-to-earth in order to test gravitational forces.

Get high: you're right: as this footage from the space shuttle shows (http://m.wimp.com/camerarocket/) the higher you go, the further you can see. Unfortunately, as the video also shows, at high enough altitudes you can see that the Earth is spherical.

Great attempt at hypothesis testing, though!

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by jaf0faj

Jump: I jumped up in a train going 100 mph and landed in the same spot! I guess the back-of-the-truck example fails because of air drag! Hey, that makes a whole lot of sense... If you jump up off the ground in 100mph winds, you'll move too! The winds must be from the Earth rotating!

Blow: my piece of paper stuck to the underside of the balloon from static cling. I guess that forces can hold two bodies together! I know that in this case it was static electricity, but I couldn't cut the paper small enough (smaller than the paper's width by several orders of magnitude) to the same scale as human-to-earth in order to test gravitational forces.

Get high: you're right: as this footage from the space shuttle shows (http://m.wimp.com/camerarocket/) the higher you go, the further you can see. Unfortunately, as the video also shows, at high enough altitudes you can see that the Earth is spherical.

Great attempt at hypothesis testing, though!

Ha Ha Ha, you are funny!

Now, read all the posts in this thread, you'll see that 100's of adolescent children just like you made the same outlandish comments, all throughly rebuked and categorically disproved by experts.

[John Allen]

Originally Posted by jaf0faj

Jump: I jumped up in a train going 100 mph and landed in the same spot! I guess the back-of-the-truck example fails because of air drag! Hey, that makes a whole lot of sense... If you jump up off the ground in 100mph winds, you'll move too! The winds must be from the Earth rotating!

Blow: my piece of paper stuck to the underside of the balloon from static cling. I guess that forces can hold two bodies together! I know that in this case it was static electricity, but I couldn't cut the paper small enough (smaller than the paper's width by several orders of magnitude) to the same scale as human-to-earth in order to test gravitational forces.

Get high: you're right: as this footage from the space shuttle shows (http://m.wimp.com/camerarocket/) the higher you go, the further you can see. Unfortunately, as the video also shows, at high enough altitudes you can see that the Earth is spherical.

Great attempt at hypothesis testing, though!

First off, as Mr. Hutchins said, read the thread. Secondly, maybe you should try and INTRODUCE YOURSELF FIRST here? http://www.landoverbaptist.net/forumdisplay.php?f=16 People who hope to please God should introduce themselves, preferably before posting anywhere else.

[TheBlindMan]

What if you move from home in a straight line? you could perhabs realyze that aafter a long time you would end up at your home again.

I could explain why all those experiments don't work the way you think they should, but you would just reject it. Do you really teach those things to your children?

You all go to hell because you are saying that the word of the God is written in a book written by someone who was not God. God made us this way because he wanted to, that was his only "word"

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by TheBlindMan

What if you move from home in a straight line? you could perhabs realyze that aafter a long time you would end up at your home again.

I could explain why all those experiments don't work the way you think they should, but you would just reject it. Do you really teach those things to your children?

You all go to hell because you are saying that the word of the God is written in a book written by someone who was not God. God made us this way because he wanted to, that was his only "word"

If you move from your home in a straight line, you would drown. If you got on a boat and traveled in what you think is a straight line, God would move you along the outer edges of the firmament. It is all documented clearly in this thread. I suggest you read it. All of it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

[Erin500]

Earth has already seemed flat to me but thanks for this thread, gives me ideas on how to teach practical lessons to my sons about it.

[jaf0faj]

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

Ha Ha Ha, you are funny!

Now, read all the posts in this thread, you'll see that 100's of adolescent children just like you made the same outlandish comments, all throughly rebuked and categorically disproved by experts.

'throughly [sic] rebuked'. I'm perplexed by this. I just followed the good pastor's suggestion to try those three experiments and was reporting in on what the results were. Why would anyone rebuke the results of the experiments that the pastor recommended?