No, there would be at least a gravitational connection of "anything above" with "what we are standing on" - or do you not believe in gravity?Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2022, 4:57 pm Can we get an acknowledgement that anything above is completely independent of what we are standing on?
Care to answer my question? How do the earth's waters stay above the sun, moon, and stars?
Flat Earth
- BroJones
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 8247
- Location: Varies.
- Contact:
Re: Flat Earth
And now the 2nd part of your post:
- h_p
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2811
Re: Flat Earth
Lest it breed more accusations of conspiracy and photoshop, there's this disclaimer in the description:
I believe these sites don't show any pre-recorded footage:THIS WILL SHOW LIVE and PRE-RECORDED FOOTAGE - depending on signal from the station or if the ISS is on the night side of Earth.
When the feed is live the words LIVE NOW will appear in the top left hand corner of the screen.
As the Space Station passes into a period of night every 45 mins video is unavailable - during this time, and other breaks in transmission, recorded footage is shown .
When back in daylight the live stream of earth will recommence
https://www.n2yo.com/space-station/
https://www.burlesonisd.net/Page/1271
https://www.spacetv.net/live/iss-live-c ... telemetry/
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4507
Re: Flat Earth
There's has been plenty of evidence, many even admit it. It also quite apparent that there are decades of sifting where Nasa has plenty of time and opportunity to find out who their yes men are.
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4507
Re: Flat Earth
Yet somehow it does, because they're all right here above us. Who knew the Bible was true.h_p wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2022, 8:55 pmAnd yet, somehow, it does. The inverse square law has to do with the number of photons impacting a given area at a given distance), not the distance a single photon can travel before it runs out of batteries and gives up.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2022, 7:23 pm The distance can't work. The inverse square law of light wouldn't allow the light to travel that far. Even with the claim that those suns are 1000 times bigger than ours, that's not big enough.
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4507
Re: Flat Earth
This just shows how you have only looked at one side of the debate, as if catering to a preconceived bias will win the day. I encourage you to take a step outside of your echo chamber and actually look at the evidence. Half of their footage from space is proven fake and the other half is inconclusive either way.
Answer me this. What are all the other possible reasons for faking half of your footage, supposing they do go up into space?
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4507
Re: Flat Earth
This is how you end up on the wrong side. Scripture pleads with you to not put your trust in men, yet you disregard its warnings.
All of life's experiences are designed by the Lord to show us that we can only trust in him.
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4507
Re: Flat Earth
So, it would be in the same category as half of everything else people speculate on about space, the mathematical musings of scientists who stopped do actual experiments decades ago.
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”
― Nikola Tesla
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4507
Re: Flat Earth
I don't understand your readiness to discard scripture and render the creation accounts moot. They are very clear that the earth's waters are above the sun, moon, and stars.BroJones wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 7:23 am And now the 2nd part of your post:No, there would be at least a gravitational connection of "anything above" with "what we are standing on" - or do you not believe in gravity?Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2022, 4:57 pm Can we get an acknowledgement that anything above is completely independent of what we are standing on?
Care to answer my question? How do the earth's waters stay above the sun, moon, and stars?
Trying to explain away by the creation accounts by saying the Hebrews had a primitive understanding of the universe, doesn't work. No matter how stupid we claim the ancient Hebrews were, there is no people so dumb that God couldn't explain to them that the stars are actually very far away. Secondly, if they were so dumb that they couldn't comprehend distant stars, how do we justify God lying to them with a fictional creation account?
The God who does not lie has told us that the sun is under the earth's waters.
- Shawn Henry
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4507
Re: Flat Earth
There is only a gravitational connection because you make two premises, both of which are unproven. First, that our lights in the sky are not lights, but that they are physical objects. Secondly, that celestial objects attract each other.BroJones wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 7:23 am And now the 2nd part of your post:No, there would be at least a gravitational connection of "anything above" with "what we are standing on" - or do you not believe in gravity?Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2022, 4:57 pm Can we get an acknowledgement that anything above is completely independent of what we are standing on?
Care to answer my question? How do the earth's waters stay above the sun, moon, and stars?
No one doubts that everything falls down, but that is a single attraction, not a mutual attraction. What prove do you claim of a mutual attraction and please do not list the jenky cavendish experiment.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10812
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: Flat Earth
The respect you give someone relates to what they tell you their experiences are, not necessarily anything else they told you not related to those experiences.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 10:52 amThis is how you end up on the wrong side. Scripture pleads with you to not put your trust in men, yet you disregard its warnings.
All of life's experiences are designed by the Lord to show us that we can only trust in him.
Lets' say you were able to interview the 3 LDS astronauts and they gave you very detailed descriptions of orbiting the earth, claiming these were their true experiences; you give them respect by believing them . . . at least that they believe what they were telling you. This is simple, common human courtesy
Their testimony is also good evidence that can be used in court, and would be scientific evidence that the earth is a globe. For you to rebut the testimonies of their experiences, you would have to come up with convincing evidence that they were all lying. And if you tried to rebut them by claiming they were all duped by a masonic cabal you would be laughed out of court.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10812
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: Flat Earth
You get lost in your generalities. Were talking about 5 LDS men who had very close connections to the NASA programs, etc., three of which orbited the earth multiple times.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 10:36 amThere's has been plenty of evidence, many even admit it. It also quite apparent that there are decades of sifting where Nasa has plenty of time and opportunity to find out who their yes men are.
What is your evidence that these 5 men were somehow duped by a "masonic brotherhood"? Can you produce it? I very much doubt it.
- BeNotDeceived
- Agent38
- Posts: 8960
- Location: Tralfamadore
- Contact:
Re: Flat Earth
Better yet is a photograph.larsenb wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 11:56 amThe respect you give someone relates to what they tell you their experiences are, not necessarily anything else they told you not related to those experiences.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 10:52 amThis is how you end up on the wrong side. Scripture pleads with you to not put your trust in men, yet you disregard its warnings.
All of life's experiences are designed by the Lord to show us that we can only trust in him.
Lets' say you were able to interview the 3 LDS astronauts and they gave you very detailed descriptions of orbiting the earth, claiming these were their true experiences; you give them respect by believing them . . . at least that they believe what they were telling you. This is simple, common human courtesy
Their testimony is also good evidence that can be used in court, and would be scientific evidence that the earth is a globe. For you to rebut the testimonies of their experiences, you would have to come up with convincing evidence that they were all lying. And if you tried to rebut them by claiming they were all duped by a masonic cabal you would be laughed out of court.
Better still is a significant earthquake.
Even more better is four earthquakes in quick succession conforming to a pattern, with the sole exception being an 8.2, that was quickly redone at 8.1 magnitude.
Even more better still, the first 5.7 EQ landed Moroni's Instrument with amazing timing, as permarch8miracle.org.
In the name of Jesus Crist,
Amen
- h_p
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2811
Re: Flat Earth
Sorry, you have me completely wrong. I have looked at both sides. I actually did learn some things, one of which is that it's not nearly as simple as we think to prove by direct experiment one way or the other. Most people dismissing the other side use thought experiments based on assumptions or misunderstandings and then use that as an excuse to be rude or mock the other. I see this on both sides of the debate, though globers are definitely the worst for that. I didn't mean for my question to come off that way, and if it did, I apologize. It was a serious question.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 10:49 amThis just shows how you have only looked at one side of the debate, as if catering to a preconceived bias will win the day. I encourage you to take a step outside of your echo chamber and actually look at the evidence. Half of their footage from space is proven fake and the other half is inconclusive either way.
Answer me this. What are all the other possible reasons for faking half of your footage, supposing they do go up into space?
I also learned that most if not all flat-earthers base their belief in a literal reading of Genesis--I honestly never realized that the creation account was from a flat-earth perspective, and now that I do, all the talk about separating the waters from the waters, and the description of the Flood makes sense. It's not enough to convince me, though--I don't have to believe Moses actually copied it word for word as it fell from God's lips to maintain my belief in God. I'm not even sure I believe Moses wrote it.
And I also learned that it's almost hopeless to try to convince someone to change their opinion on the matter. Any evidence presented is almost universally dismissed out of hand as faked or inaccurate. Like I said earlier in this thread: "I think the only thing that really gets proven in these debates is that pretty much everything we believe or even claim we know without a doubt is actually just taken on faith."
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10812
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: Flat Earth
"pretty much everything we believe or even claim we know without a doubt is actually just taken on faith." This is quite true, because we don't all have the time, ability, or resources to verify a given claim whether scientific or not.h_p wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 12:25 pm , , , ,
And I also learned that it's almost hopeless to try to convince someone to change their opinion on the matter. Any evidence presented is almost universally dismissed out of hand as faked or inaccurate. Like I said earlier in this thread: "I think the only thing that really gets proven in these debates is that pretty much everything we believe or even claim we know without a doubt is actually just taken on faith."
Even a scientist has to believe he is reading his instrumentation correctly and/or that it is measuring what he thinks it is.
But the strength of the process of conducting science is the consensus and repeatability that develops over time. No one is claiming this process is fool-proof, but outside of getting direct revelation from God, it's about the best we've got.
My personal belief about these FE threads is that they simply show the human tendency to get caught up in certain ideas and concepts. For me, I see them as examples of what Jung described as "psychic epidemics, the hallmark of which is that no amount of discussion, analysis, evidence/proof will dislodge their proponents from their beliefs.
Strange stuff.
- BeNotDeceived
- Agent38
- Posts: 8960
- Location: Tralfamadore
- Contact:
Re: Flat Earth
It's possible the early earth was encased inside an outer shell of water.h_p wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 12:25 pmSorry, you have me completely wrong. I have looked at both sides. I actually did learn some things, one of which is that it's not nearly as simple as we think to prove by direct experiment one way or the other. Most people dismissing the other side use thought experiments based on assumptions or misunderstandings and then use that as an excuse to be rude or mock the other. I see this on both sides of the debate, though globers are definitely the worst for that. I didn't mean for my question to come off that way, and if it did, I apologize. It was a serious question.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 10:49 amThis just shows how you have only looked at one side of the debate, as if catering to a preconceived bias will win the day. I encourage you to take a step outside of your echo chamber and actually look at the evidence. Half of their footage from space is proven fake and the other half is inconclusive either way.
Answer me this. What are all the other possible reasons for faking half of your footage, supposing they do go up into space?
I also learned that most if not all flat-earthers base their belief in a literal reading of Genesis--I honestly never realized that the creation account was from a flat-earth perspective, and now that I do, all the talk about separating the waters from the waters, and the description of the Flood makes sense. It's not enough to convince me, though--I don't have to believe Moses actually copied it word for word as it fell from God's lips to maintain my belief in God. I'm not even sure I believe Moses wrote it.
And I also learned that it's almost hopeless to try to convince someone to change their opinion on the matter. Any evidence presented is almost universally dismissed out of hand as faked or inaccurate. Like I said earlier in this thread: "I think the only thing that really gets proven in these debates is that pretty much everything we believe or even claim we know without a doubt is actually just taken on faith."
- h_p
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2811
Re: Flat Earth
It's also possible that it came in on the back of a giant turtle.BeNotDeceived wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 3:58 pm It's possible the early earth was encased inside an outer shell of water.
- BeNotDeceived
- Agent38
- Posts: 8960
- Location: Tralfamadore
- Contact:
Re: Flat Earth
The outer shell of water may explain Noah’s flood and the corresponding change in lifespans.h_p wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 4:25 pmIt's also possible that it came in on the back of a giant turtle.BeNotDeceived wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 3:58 pm It's possible the early earth was encased inside an outer shell of water.
- The Red Pill
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1661
- Location: Southern Utah
Re: Flat Earth
This seems rather silly to me, and my apologies in advance if I am overly simplifying the issue...But I have looked through a fair amount of telescopes in my life...
....and everything I have EVER seen is a sphere, a round sphere. Why would the planet we are standing on be any different??? What would be the purpose???
....and everything I have EVER seen is a sphere, a round sphere. Why would the planet we are standing on be any different??? What would be the purpose???
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10812
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: Flat Earth
Or that it sits on turtles all the way down, maybe to infinity.h_p wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 4:25 pmIt's also possible that it came in on the back of a giant turtle.BeNotDeceived wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 3:58 pm It's possible the early earth was encased inside an outer shell of water.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2410
Re: Flat Earth
What data?BroJones wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 7:19 amSorry, the explanation you offer does not lend itself to any scientific test and so is extremely unscientific. Perhaps you were just trying to be funny?Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2022, 4:57 pmYeah sure. Something unknown is eclipsing the sun and the moon. How's that for an answer? [snip]BroJones wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2022, 7:38 am 2 eclipses How in Flat Earth.jpgI see that my question in another (concurrent) thread on this topic has gone Unanswered, sigh.
So I repeat my question here using a screen copy.
Note that my question is based on DATA including personal Observations of both solar and lunar (blood moon) eclipses.
Consider rather the data presented in this video (EXPLAnation using a round earth, around which the moon is orbiting):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J8WGnJdRXI
- ransomme
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4013
Re: Flat Earth
We shouldn't be hasty in deciding what "...divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament:..." (Gen 1:7) means. There seems to be many possibilities better than Flat Earth. One thing that I think is, we should limit ourselves to 4 dimensions!Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 11:23 amThere is only a gravitational connection because you make two premises, both of which are unproven. First, that our lights in the sky are not lights, but that they are physical objects. Secondly, that celestial objects attract each other.BroJones wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 7:23 am And now the 2nd part of your post:No, there would be at least a gravitational connection of "anything above" with "what we are standing on" - or do you not believe in gravity?Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2022, 4:57 pm Can we get an acknowledgement that anything above is completely independent of what we are standing on?
Care to answer my question? How do the earth's waters stay above the sun, moon, and stars?
No one doubts that everything falls down, but that is a single attraction, not a mutual attraction. What prove do you claim of a mutual attraction and please do not list the jenky cavendish experiment.
For example, look at the creation story in Job 26 (which may be a lot older):
5 The departed spirits are made to tremble Under the waters and their inhabitants.
6 Sheol is naked before Him, And Abaddon has no covering.
(Hell is below the waters and not covered by his cloud?)
7 He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.
(earth is a globe floating in space?)
8 He wraps up the waters in His clouds, And the cloud does not burst under them.
9 He obscures the face of the full moon And spreads His cloud over it.
(sounds like the clouds are in the heaven/sky and hold water/rain and can cover the moon)
10 He has inscribed a circle [horizon] on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.
11 The pillars of heaven tremble And are amazed at His rebuke.
12 With His power He quieted the sea, And by His understanding He shattered Rahab.
13 By His breath the heavens are cleared; His hand has pierced the fleeing serpent.
14 Behold, these are the fringes of His ways; And how faint a word we hear of Him! But His mighty thunder, who can understand?
Or Psalms 148
1 Praise the Lord from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights!
2 Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts!
(Highest, w. God)
3 Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light!
(Expanse / Firmament)
4 Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens!
(could be translated as in the midst of, ie clouds in the sky)
5 Let them praise the name of the Lord, For He commanded and they were created.
6 He also established them forever and ever; He made a decree which shall not pass away.
7 Praise the Lord from the earth, You great sea creatures and all the depths;
8 Fire and hail, snow and clouds; Stormy wind, fulfilling His word;
As far as I can tell is that God typically speaks to us on our level of understanding, and conceptually rather than in scientific truth.
- BeNotDeceived
- Agent38
- Posts: 8960
- Location: Tralfamadore
- Contact:
Re: Flat Earth
There wouldn’t be any water on a planet with a temperature higher than the boiling point of water. So the oceans would exist as a ginormous steam cloud. The steam would condense beginning on the outer surface. The condensed water being more dense would have sufficient gravity to attract more water resulting in said shell. After many years the shell collapses and causes the great flood.larsenb wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 6:55 pmOr that it sits on turtles all the way down, maybe to infinity.h_p wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 4:25 pmIt's also possible that it came in on the back of a giant turtle.BeNotDeceived wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 3:58 pm It's possible the early earth was encased inside an outer shell of water.
What is the average depth of the oceans?
- ransomme
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4013
Re: Flat Earth
Also look at
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Birds flying in the firmament? Is the firmament not firm? is not the firmament above the Sun, moon, and stars?
Couldn't the waters above be clouds, aka the making of the Earth's climate?
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Birds flying in the firmament? Is the firmament not firm? is not the firmament above the Sun, moon, and stars?
Couldn't the waters above be clouds, aka the making of the Earth's climate?
- Niemand
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 13997
Re: Flat Earth
Most things you can see through an amateur telescope are, but there are a few exceptions: comets, asteroids (which are very hard to observe, so probably don't count), nebulæ and galaxies. We probably could count Phobos and Deimos although those generally don't show up well on smaller telescopes and also move quickly. Comets have a feathered appearance (hence maybe the Winged Serpent stories of Native America), nebulæ are clouds (what the word means) and galaxies either appear as clouds or whirlpools.The Red Pill wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 5:28 pm This seems rather silly to me, and my apologies in advance if I am overly simplifying the issue...But I have looked through a fair amount of telescopes in my life...
....and everything I have EVER seen is a sphere, a round sphere. Why would the planet we are standing on be any different??? What would be the purpose???
The most obvious example is the Moon, and you can follow the lunar day by casual observation (it takes much longer than ours). Over half the Moon is visible (an extra 10% on top of the 50% occasionally appears). It is possible to follow days on Mars with enough patience but the planet gets frequent storms. Jupiter too to some extent.
- Robin Hood
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 13109
- Location: England
Re: Flat Earth
A flat earther would say:The Red Pill wrote: ↑December 4th, 2022, 5:28 pm This seems rather silly to me, and my apologies in advance if I am overly simplifying the issue...But I have looked through a fair amount of telescopes in my life...
....and everything I have EVER seen is a sphere, a round sphere. Why would the planet we are standing on be any different??? What would be the purpose???
Just because the balls on a pool table are spheres, it doesn't mean the table is.