[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

People could still take photos of other planets before 1946.

What the Hell do pictures of other planets have to do with whether the Earth is flat?

I said mormons and not mormons!

If you ever make up your mind on this issue, please let us know. Otherwise, everyone in here will think you are some kind of moron.

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

Stop lying about what we True Christians™ believe. Here is what Pastor Pistle said:

The LORD caused rain for forty days and forty nights. The pagans drowned. The earth filled with water like a sponge and became round.

Where in there does it say that the Earth is still round? It became round because it was waterlogged like a sponge. When the waters of the Great Flood receded, it became flat again. No True Christian™ thinks the Earth remained round, since, if that had happened, how could the Devil have taken Jesus to a mountain from which He could survey all of the nations of the Earth in Matthew 4:8? How could the four angels stand on the four corners of the Earth in Revelation 7:1?

Lo and behold, another lie by Peter. What shock.

I curse and swear when I want! I know enough words and you cannot change them all!!!

Your parents must be very proud of your large vocabulary!!!!

[Jonesy]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

HALLOWED ARE THE ORI!

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

just you wait mr..........
just you wait.......

You'll sick the none-existent Belgium army on me?

[just Jimi]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

just you wait mr..........
just you wait.......

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Stop changing what I say!! I curse and swear when I want! I know enough words and you cannot change them all!!!

Not on our forum. Remember you are the guest here.

[just Jimi]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

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

Stop changing what I say!! I curse and swear when I want! I know enough words and you cannot change them all!!!

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

Dark, though, is merely the abscense of light, not a state in of itself.

Two responses. First, how are we to go about sorting the world into "states in of themselves" and "states not in of themselves?" That distinction puzzles me. Second, let's take a close look at the chronology of the First Day:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 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 1:1-5

We see that there was darkness originally and then there was light, and only after that did God divide the light from the darkness. So, at some point in the First Day, the darkness and the light were all mixed together. So I can't support the statement that darkness is merely the nonexistence of light.

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.

True enough. That source of energy is God.

I don't think it's feasible to perform a redshift calculation for an object so close,

Relative velocity and the nature of the medium through which the light travels explain redshift, not the distance. But I think what you're saying is that we should be able to measure the redshift of the light from the Sun as it moves through the sky. Unfortunately, you are still making the false assumption that the light of day comes from the Sun. The light of day has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Sun. The Sun isn't the source of "sunlight," it is just the orb that God created to rule the day. Of course, since it is only visible during the day, it has to be very bright to be seen.

I don't see how the Bible could be any clearer on this point. Day existed before God created the Sun.

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),

How do you know it is 8 minutes? Has somebody been standing on the "surface" of the Sun with a stopwatch?

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.

CME travel time is measured starting with the assumption that the Sun is millions of miles away. That assumption is wrong, so the conclusion you reach on velocity is wrong.

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.

I'm still puzzled by why you think you know when the CME left the "surface" of the Sun.

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

OK. Although you are just wrong about the astronomy, I must say you seem an intelligent enough chap, and it is a pleasure debating you, so I will try not to focus on your rhetoric and instead stick to the science. Truth be told, I'm guilty of the occasional rhetorical flourish myself, and generally not to my credit.

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.

Redshift and parallax are real phenomena, and the math isn't very difficult, so I think we can skip that (simple wave mechanics and trigonometry, respectively). But they must be caused by the refraction of the atmosphere, not by motion of/distance of various heavenly bodies.

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

But without the evidence and the give and take of debate, how will we discover the truth? Sure, we can discover the truth by reading the Bible, but, unfortunately, that doesn't seem to convince a lot of the non-Christians in the Landover Forums, and I wouldn want them to think that we haven't carefully considered the science.

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.

Ah, now I see your error. You are ignoring the pull of gravity from Hell (particularly the Lake of Fire), which is below the Earth. Add that mass back in, and your formula works perfectly the rate of descent of objects in the gravitational field near Earth.

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.

Earth is too stiff because of the adamantine skeleton. I agree, if there were no framework holding the flat Earth in place and the full gravitational mass in the vicinity of the Earth were due to the Earth itself, and not to Hell, too (which accounts for the vast majority, it turns out), the equations would yield an energy minimum (and therefore the equilibrium) with a nearly spherical Earth. But factoring in Hellish geometry and the unique stiffness of the metallic floor of the Earth, a flattened Earth is easily possible.

Anyway, no need to apologize for not having studied more math, you can be proud of making it through Calculus II.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Flat Earth? Hell Yes!

A reply composed of numbers drawn from statistical analysis of data by so-called "scientists" and a whole mess of arbitrary man-made units is hardly going to be much proof before The Word of The Lord, is it?

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”
-- St. Augustine (354-430)

[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!)