[F. Nietzsche]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

I think I see the problem here. You are assuming that day and night are caused by presence and absence of the Sun. Nothing could be further from the truth. God created light and darkness on the First Day of Creation:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:3-5

The Sun was not created until the Fourth Day:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God put them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 1 Genesis 14-19

So the position of the Sun follows the day, not the other way around. Now, since the Sun is only about 50 miles above the Earth in the Firmament of Heaven, naturally it gets dimmer as it moves across the face of the Earth following the Day. What appears to you to be a sunset is really a combination of (a) the Sun moving farther away, (b) the atmospheric bending of light to make it appear that the Sun is setting, when it is really only moving away, and (c) the onset of Night, which is dark. If it were not Night, then you would still be able to see the Sun, albeit at a very small angle and very far away. But, since it is Night, it is dark, so you can't see the Sun at all.

Dark, though, is merely the abscense of light, not a state in of itself. Light, meanwhile cannot exist without a source of energy, in this case, something capable of emitting photons, which are emitted as per some exothermic reactions (be it the fusion taking place in the sun or the glowing of an electrically charged piece of tungsten in a lightbulb). If light and darkness exist prior to the sun, there must be some other source of energy capable of emitting sufficent levels of luminosity to provide for day night cycles.

I think you are assuming that the Sun is millions of miles away. Recalculate based on the Sun being much closer to Earth, and add in the refractive index of the atmosphere, and you will find that the Sun indeed does appear at different times in different parts of the world.

I'm not quite assuming the distance. I don't think it's feasible to perform a redshift calculation for an object so close, but it is possible to measure travel time of an object moving from the sun and comparing it to the differential of when that object is released. Coronal mass ejections, essentially large eruptions from the sun's surface are readily visible shortly after they occur as per the observation of the sun (within 8 minutes), and their immediate speed is possible to measure, to an extent, equally, the time it takes for the particles expelled in a CME to reach us is measureable in hours. Suffice to say, a 50 mile distant sun would at speeds of CMEs (20km/s-2700km/s) hit the Earth within seconds of being observed, rather than the hours it currently takes in the differential between observed eruption and impact to the Earth's magnetosphere.

Please don't slip the words "of course" into a scientific discussion. If you have a point to make, make it, but it's really not fair to everyone else for you to use rhetorical flourishes like "of course" to make statements for which you have no supporting evidence.

I apologize, it's my rhetorical style, not necessarily me being dismissive.

The reason you can't see Polaris from south of the "equator" is that it is too far away. It's just like if you stood on the top of Pike's Peak and looked for a single Christmas tree light in Denver--there's no problem with the line of sight, but the light is too dim, so you can't see it.

I never disputed that.

There's a variety of means that could be used to show Polaris is in fact much more distant than a mere 50 miles. Redshift is one, parallax is another. If you want me to give you the math for these, I will, along with a further explination.

If you don't want to present your evidence, that's fine, but saying "I don't fell like giving you my evidence" is not science, it's just a cop out. You strike me as someone who actually has a brain, unlike, say, Peter, who just pulls the "science" out of his a$$, so I'm happy to delve into it as deeply as you'd like.

Also, you need to be careful what views you attribute to True Christians™. We do not believe that the Earth is a planar disk, exactly. The Earth is certainly a circle:

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. Isaiah 40:22

It is a most unusual circle, however, since it has four corners:

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Isaiah 11:12

Truly wonderous is the power of God to have fashioned such a shape!

Of course, I can't tell you where your error is without the benefit of seeing the math, but I suspect that you are making some untenable assumptions about the mass of the Earth--the best calculations from Creation Scientists put it as a square about 20-30 miles thick. In addition, the undersupport is made of adamantine, the same material as that which makes up that the pillars that hold the Heavens up above the Earth (we know this from studying the way earthquake waves bounce off the bottom). No way would that configuration be pulled into a ball by the force of gravity, it's both too stiff and insufficiently massive.

Not necessarily me copping out, just more along the lines of not wanting to turn this discussion into an overly technical one.

Anyway, if the Earth is as you claim, 20-30 miles- (32.19-48.28km) thick, and the surface area is retained (510,072,000 km^2). The volume of the object is between 1.684e^10-2.462e^10km^3, with a density of roughly 3 g/cm^3. (or Making the total weight of this object 7.3878e22 kg. Now, the general form of the equation of gravitation is:


Where G is the Gravitational constant, m1 the mass of the Earth and r2 the radius, with m2 being the mass of the body acted upon.

Science will give you the following equation, using what we know, and then provide the generally acceptable force of Gravitation for an object on Earth's surface.



9.822 ms^2 is in fact generally the average acceleration of gravity enacted upon by an object here on Earth, give or take, yet your data provides us with something completely different.

(6.6724e^-11)* (5.9736e^22/(6.37101e^6)^2)= .121432 ms^2.

Effectively, if the Earth was as you claimed, the difference in observed vs mathematically consistent acceleration is about 80, meaning objects would fall about 80x slower than observed if your model was correct.

I was going to also go into hydrostatic equilibrium as a means for showing the Earth being impossible except in rounded form, sadly, it uses PDEs in the process and I've never gone beyond Calc II in terms of mathematics (of that, even, I remember very little). So I won't even bring it up any further.

[just Jimi]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

OH MY NOT-EXISTING GOD!!
You're totally right

you rock!

[Peter]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

I must say I find your contradictions quite amusing:
loe and behold! The topic where you al say the Earth is round:

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=5007

[Peter]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

I never said that those photos were taken before 1946, but I think that doesn't matter right now. The Earth isn't flat or a tetrahedron, but it's round. (What would be on the other side according to you, and what would keep humans from falling of?)

[just Jimi]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Do you actually believe the crap you are saying?
and I thought there couldn't be such mormons.....
aai feel soow sorry for you

I said morons and not mormons!
Thou shall not change words of other people!!

[Jonesy]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Hmmm, the first computer was ENIAC, which was completed in 1946. The first so-called satellite was Sputnik, which launched in 1957. So how exactly did they take those pictures that show that the Earth was Round before 1946?

Yes i'm sure that you could alter pictures in 1946. People could still take photos of other planets before 1946.

[Kerplunki Zerplopski]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

No it doesn't... the laws of Gravity direct that any object in space will form into a globe-like object if it has enough mass (and the Earth does!)

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

If the Earth has four "corners" acoording to your book, how are you so sure that it's flat, and not a tetrahedron?

The earth is a sphere, have you never seen the pictures of the earth made by satelites? Gravity would be messed up to if the earth would be flat.

It's flat like a coin, "disk" is the word used in Isaiah. A disk also solves the whole gravity issue.

[Peter]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

If the Earth has four "corners" acoording to your book, how are you so sure that it's flat, and not a tetrahedron?

The earth is a sphere, have you never seen the pictures of the earth made by satelites? Gravity would be messed up to if the earth would be flat.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Simple. Time differentials are caused by different geographic areas having different times of sunrise and sunset.

I think I see the problem here. You are assuming that day and night are caused by presence and absence of the Sun. Nothing could be further from the truth. God created light and darkness on the First Day of Creation:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:3-5

The Sun was not created until the Fourth Day:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God put them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 1 Genesis 14-19

So the position of the Sun follows the day, not the other way around. Now, since the Sun is only about 50 miles above the Earth in the Firmament of Heaven, naturally it gets dimmer as it moves across the face of the Earth following the Day. What appears to you to be a sunset is really a combination of (a) the Sun moving farther away, (b) the atmospheric bending of light to make it appear that the Sun is setting, when it is really only moving away, and (c) the onset of Night, which is dark. If it were not Night, then you would still be able to see the Sun, albeit at a very small angle and very far away. But, since it is Night, it is dark, so you can't see the Sun at all.

In a flat Earth, sunrise would happen at one consistent time for the entire planet from Seattle to Nairobi, rather than at staggered measured intervals as we observe.

I think you are assuming that the Sun is millions of miles away. Recalculate based on the Sun being much closer to Earth, and add in the refractive index of the atmosphere, and you will find that the Sun indeed does appear at different times in different parts of the world.

Of course, since polaris ceases to be observable beyond the equator, and for that matter, the constellations of the southern hemisphere are equally inobservable from the Northern Hemisphere, that is an effective indication that the Earth cannot be anything other than curved.

Please don't slip the words "of course" into a scientific discussion. If you have a point to make, make it, but it's really not fair to everyone else for you to use rhetorical flourishes like "of course" to make statements for which you have no supporting evidence.

The reason you can't see Polaris from south of the "equator" is that it is too far away. It's just like if you stood on the top of Pike's Peak and looked for a single Christmas tree light in Denver--there's no problem with the line of sight, but the light is too dim, so you can't see it.

Yes, the hours of the day and time zones are arbitrary, but there is a measurable differential in the time of sunrise on the East Coast of the United States and in Europe. If you feel unsure using seconds and minutes to do the job, use some natural constant, there is a measureable difference between the overall position in the day/night cycle in Greece or the United States.

I never disputed that.

Of course, from this point, I could go on to say how a planar disc the size and mass of the Earth is physically impossible due to the effect of gravity on objects the size of Earth, but that would involve a large amount of mathematics which I don't feel like diving into.

If you don't want to present your evidence, that's fine, but saying "I don't fell like giving you my evidence" is not science, it's just a cop out. You strike me as someone who actually has a brain, unlike, say, Peter, who just pulls the "science" out of his a$$, so I'm happy to delve into it as deeply as you'd like.

Also, you need to be careful what views you attribute to True Christians™. We do not believe that the Earth is a planar disk, exactly. The Earth is certainly a circle:

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. Isaiah 40:22

It is a most unusual circle, however, since it has four corners:

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Isaiah 11:12

Truly wonderous is the power of God to have fashioned such a shape!

Of course, I can't tell you where your error is without the benefit of seeing the math, but I suspect that you are making some untenable assumptions about the mass of the Earth--the best calculations from Creation Scientists put it as a square about 20-30 miles thick. In addition, the undersupport is made of adamantine, the same material as that which makes up that the pillars that hold the Heavens up above the Earth (we know this from studying the way earthquake waves bounce off the bottom). No way would that configuration be pulled into a ball by the force of gravity, it's both too stiff and insufficiently massive.

[F. Nietzsche]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

That's not at all true. Why do you think that a flat Earth has to have the day/night cycle in phase everywhere?

Simple. Time differentials are caused by different geographic areas having different times of sunrise and sunset. While time zones as imposed by man are in fact arbitrary, there is difference between the hour of sunrise in say, Los Angeles, from London, which can be measured in hours. In a flat Earth, sunrise would happen at one consistent time for the entire planet from Seattle to Nairobi, rather than at staggered measured intervals as we observe. A spherical Earth solves this problem perfectly, as the Earth rotates, portions of the planet leave view of the sun as others enter it, something a Flat Earth cannot.

The stars are only 40 or 50 miles away, in the firmament of heaven. So why wouldn't the angles change when you move hundreds of miles?

Simple geometry really. The plane of the earth in this case is a continous reference point facing a fixed object, while the angle does change and the hypotenuse of the triangle becomes increasingly lengthened, the object itself remains in full view even at the edges of this planar disc. Of course, since polaris ceases to be observable beyond the equator, and for that matter, the constellations of the southern hemisphere are equally inobservable from the Northern Hemisphere, that is an effective indication that the Earth cannot be anything other than curved.

Why can't a flat Earth have different times in different places?

There places in Western Texas on Central Time that are farther West than places in Nebraska that are on Mountain Time. Time in a particular places is a human-imposed convention.

Yes, the hours of the day and time zones are arbitrary, but there is a measurable differential in the time of sunrise on the East Coast of the United States and in Europe. If you feel unsure using seconds and minutes to do the job, use some natural constant, there is a measureable difference between the overall position in the day/night cycle in Greece or the United States.

A flat earth cannot do this because if it was in fact flat, every single point on earth would in fact be in view of the sun whenever one point was.

Of course, from this point, I could go on to say how a planar disc the size and mass of the Earth is physically impossible due to the effect of gravity on objects the size of Earth, but that would involve a large amount of mathematics which I don't feel like diving into.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

then... how did all those people travel between those countries in less than a day?

The key is that the distance you measure when you fly between cities, and the actual distances, are different, because of the coriolis effect. I provided a reference to Dr. Ville's study in which he sets out the real location of every major city on the Earth, with a formula showing apparent distances after considering the coriolis effect. You will find that it is in full accord with published airline schedules, etc. worldwide. I don't really have anything to add to the perfectly lucid explanation you will find there.

If in fact the earth was flat, the entire world would have more or less the same day/night cycle, not to mention the same overall view of the night sky, which is completely wrong.

That's not at all true. Why do you think that a flat Earth has to have the day/night cycle in phase everywhere?

Travel several hundred miles south and the position of Polaris shifts towards the horizon, until once the Equator is crossed, it ceases to be visible. Explain to me again how such a thing can take place in a flat earth with roughly the same plane of reference for all points on said disc (which I assume is the model you have of it.)?

The stars are only 40 or 50 miles away, in the firmament of heaven. So why wouldn't the angles change when you move hundreds of miles?

if the earth was flat, every country in the world would have the Exact same time at exactly the same moment!

Why can't a flat Earth have different times in different places?

There places in Western Texas on Central Time that are farther West than places in Nebraska that are on Mountain Time. Time in a particular places is a human-imposed convention.

[Kerplunki Zerplopski]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

what about the difference in time? (Solar time that is, not general time)

if the earth was flat, every country in the world would have the Exact same time at exactly the same moment!

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Right now it is currently 1:15 AM in Weimar, Germany, where I live. If in fact the earth was flat, the entire world would have more or less the same day/night cycle, not to mention the same overall view of the night sky, which is completely wrong.

Travel several hundred miles south and the position of Polaris shifts towards the horizon, until once the Equator is crossed, it ceases to be visible. Explain to me again how such a thing can take place in a flat earth with roughly the same plane of reference for all points on said disc (which I assume is the model you have of it.)?

The simple fact is, there is more which can be done with optics and simple observation which can show the curvature of the Earth than several NASA photographs.

Fisheye lenses friend - everything looks spherical.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

stop derailing a very good thread - all anyone can see is some circles and a big fat arrow and your word "BELGIUM" This is not proof!

There's nothing there - and even if you had been a bit more careful, I rather think the mythical Kingdom of The Belgs was much further south and east. Goodness! How many times do you have to be told!

Enough! On with the Godly thread.