[boondox]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

The Sun goes underneath the Earth during the night.

that might be true if the sun revolved around the earth. but it doesnt. the earth revolves around the sun.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Well, perhaps you don't agree with his interpretation. But can you then explain to me how your interpretation is better?

At last! A sensible question from a person open-minded enough to learn something! Ahem!, Your answer is, "God did it." That, Jessev, is not only AN answer, it is THE answer and is the PERFECT answer

And I wasn't aware that the Landover Baptist school existed in the 1700's.

For someone who's a secular "so-called" scientist, your powers of observation are poor - Look at the banner above, "Guaranteeing Salvation Since 1620"!

[jessev]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Well, perhaps you don't agree with his interpretation. But can you then explain to me how your interpretation is better? And as for sites with multiple font colors. It's a fairly decent way of organizing a page, is it not? Makes it easier to tell the difference between different things. And I'm not really sure what a tinfoil hat has to do with anything, to be honest. And I wasn't aware that the Landover Baptist school existed in the 1700's. Has it been around that long? If so, that's pretty cool at least. Few places from that time still exist. Except for certain forts and other such stone structures.

Hmmm... my advice to you is twofold: (i) avoid sites with multiple font colors unless wearing a tinfoil helmet (ii) the writer thinks that he has found something interesting, whereas an 11 year old Landover student in the late 18th century would have been able to put him right.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Just a bit of a curious read for anyone who is interested. I found a well written and informational article that I'm not going to explain myself because the author of the article explains it much better than I could. But it makes a great deal of sense from what I see, personally.

http://www.christianmuse.com/a4mc/mc14.shtml

Hmmm... my advice to you is twofold: (i) avoid sites with multiple font colors unless wearing a tinfoil helmet (ii) the writer thinks that he has found something interesting, whereas an 11 year old Landover student in the late 18th century would have been able to put him right.

[jessev]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Just a bit of a curious read for anyone who is interested. I found a well written and informational article that I'm not going to explain myself because the author of the article explains it much better than I could. But it makes a great deal of sense from what I see, personally.

http://www.christianmuse.com/a4mc/mc14.shtml

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

So, all in all, our sun is not even close to having enough mass or density to trap light.

Of course it doesn't, because we wouldn't be able to see it otherwise.

Besides, we've already established the size of the sun in another thread. Meet me over there in about half an hour and I will have calculated the mass.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Nobar King]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

That's all I'm going to say here. Sorry if it's a bit much.

It's a bit much. Did you just prove the universe in twelve sentences? I think not.

[jessev]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

If I may interject something here, I think a bit of clarity should be said as well between the difference of mass, density, and volume. Mass is how heavy something is ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass ). Density is its mass per unit volume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density ). And Volume is how much space it takes up ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume ). Size of a star by itself is not important so much as a star can be very large (high volume), but not very dense, so it's mass is not particularly a lot. On the other hand, some stars are small, but very dense. So, it has a fair bit of mass.

Black holes are a singularity that doesn't particularly have any volume. It is just a single really really dense point in which past the event horizon, gravity is so great and space-time is so warped that nothing can escape it. It's actually a good example of the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein (not that anyone here probably cares).

As for the trapping of light by gravity, I don't know exactly how much gravity would be required. I couldn't quite find it. There are some stars that have this effect though. Where it does have a great enough gravity to effectively trap light. But mostly, blackholes are mostly what traps light completely.

Other stars, like neutron stars, have the same mass as the Sun, but takes up an amount of space roughly equivalent to a city, thus having a much much greater density as the Sun.

So, all in all, our sun is not even close to having enough mass or density to trap light. Most stars do not. That's why you don't see them. Light has properties of both waves and particles. It can travel through a vacume like a wave, but has inertial mass (such that can move things using a solar sail), like a particle.

As for calculating the mass of stars (because it can be calculated, just not directly by measuring weight on a galactic size scale), look here: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970609f.html

Alright. That's all I'm going to say here. Sorry if it's a bit much.

We are used to having tons of BS thrown at us by you unsaved trash. We don't have time to address it all, so we tend to ignore the stuff that is so obviously wrong on its face that nobody would possibly take it seriously.

If the gravity from a star ten or 15 times the mass of the sun permanently traps light, then how is it that we see light from stars that are more than 10 or 15 times the mass of the Sun? This is the kind of nonsensical result you get when you scientist types make assumptions about things that you cannot measure, such as the mass of the sun.

Gravity is a force, and the strength of a force field is given in units of mass x distance / time ^2. Your formula is expressed only in units of mass.

Try taking a high school physics class before you start lecturing us on science. The physicists are wrong about most things, but at least they keep their inaccuracies consistent, which is more than I can say for you.

[Mister Brasil]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Every time one of these undergrad physicists starts talking about space-time, I know I'm dealing with a crazy kook who will never amount to anything.

I live in three dimensions, not four. It's not difficult to locate myself in respect to other known locales in three dimensions. All I need is a GPS.

But I can't localize myself in four dimensions. Where am I at 1980? At 2010? Your model lacks predictive capability.

That's also how I know the round-earth hypothesis is wrong. Where am I when I am at 30 degrees latitude? What longitude? At 31 degrees?

The flat earth model accurately answers these questions. At 30 degrees latitude, I'm at the convenience store, perusing refrigerated fermented beverages. At 31 degrees longitude, I'm on a Greyhound.

It's like you're an alchemist, relentlessly pursuing the philosopher's stone, when gold spray paint is easily available at the Ace Hardware, five blocks away.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

No, you are traveling in a circle, but in the same sense, you can follow the equator of the earth around, making a complete circle around the earth.

Yes, a circle.

When you use a compass, what does the needle point to?

That's right, magnetic north.

When you travel around the circle of the Equator, it keeps pointing toward magnetic north . . . the MIDDLE of the CIRCLE.

Magnetic north only proves that God put a big magnet in the MIDDLE of the flat Earth. Imagine you use a drawing compass, and you put the point on your sheet of paper and draw a circle. That's how your trip around the Equator looks.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

I used a series of irrelevant equations earlier to see if you would pick up on the fact that they were irrelevant before I had to tell you. You didn't.

We are used to having tons of BS thrown at us by you unsaved trash. We don't have time to address it all, so we tend to ignore the stuff that is so obviously wrong on its face that nobody would possibly take it seriously.

To attain permanent daylight, one would have to permanently trap the light from the sun. The gravitational field needed to to that is the gravitational field of a stellar mass black hole, the final point in the life of a star 10 to 15 times the mass of our sun.

If the gravity from a star ten or 15 times the mass of the sun permanently traps light, then how is it that we see light from stars that are more than 10 or 15 times the mass of the Sun? This is the kind of nonsensical result you get when you scientist types make assumptions about things that you cannot measure, such as the mass of the sun.

I'll even reference the entire equation. G=8(Pi)T, where G is the gravitational field, and T is the mass.

Gravity is a force, and the strength of a force field is given in units of mass x distance / time ^2. Your formula is expressed only in units of mass.

Try taking a high school physics class before you start lecturing us on science. The physicists are wrong about most things, but at least they keep their inaccuracies consistent, which is more than I can say for you.

[ellandroadhero]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

It's flat, not two-dimensional, fool! It's not like a sheet of paper, as evidenced by our ability to dig mines and bring up presents God left for us in the soil and rock. It's at least two miles thick; we've dug holes that deep.

Really, you atheist God-mockers just have no common sense at all.

As for gravity? God made that, just like the rest of the universe.

Not the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?

You have just made yourself look really dumb. It being 3-d would not stop people from falling off the edge. My table is 3-d but things can still fall off it.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

1. Time zones were put into place at a meeting in Washington D.C. In AMERICA. Also, racist? That's hilarious coming from you.

Under a Demoncrat administration, no doubt.

2. I did have a response, but thought you were not deserving of it. I'll give it to you now. It has been ASSUMED in some parts of the world that it is flat. They had no evidence of it. In other parts of the ancient world, it was known to be round by many people. It was proven by their mathematicians.

Were these mathematicians? No. Then why should we trust them?

3. He never said anything Anti-God. Not once, in his post.

I can't be bothered finding the relevant post now, so let us just agree that I'm right and you're wrong.

4. How is Islam Satanic? They merely state that there was one different prophet, and they have a different name for their spiritual entity. (God)

They worship the moon and a paedophile and blow themselves up for kicks. It doesn't take a genius to work out there's something not right there.

You stated, with these quotes to support you, that science and God were two different masters. Christian scientists use SCIENCE to attempt to prove God's word. Are they unclean? Are they traitors?

1) No, God and secular logic are two different masters. True Christian Science has nothing to do with secular "rationality".
2) Christian scientists only have one master (God); they use science as a means to further that end. I use my computer to spread God's word, but that doesn't make it my master.

[Nobar King]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Why would you want permanent daylight? Even if you could attain those conditions, would life even be possible there? How would you get evidence that it actually happened?

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

1.Light is a special case in terms of momentum. There is no other particle like it.

Sounds like an ad-hoc theory to me.

2. I used a series of irrelevant equations earlier to see if you would pick up on the fact that they were irrelevant before I had to tell you. You didn't.

Sure.

To attain permanent daylight, one would have to permanently trap the light from the sun.

Why would light have to be "permanently trapped"? The gravitational field of this hypothetical sphere would only have to be strong enough so that a photon that just misses it is pulled in and strikes the opposite side. Why do you think that the gravitational field has to be so strong that the escape velocity equals or exceeds the speed of light in order to accomplish this? No one said that the photon can't bounce off after it strikes.

This is all irrelevant academics anyway. None of this really matters, because the Earth is not a sphere, and these formulas are all made up by men. Every time a formula gives a result that the scientists don't like, they just change the formula.

Pastor Billy-Reuben