Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
No one has answered that, and also only W commented on my thread showing a sphere can appear flat with a horizon.Also the north star's latitude can be measured with a sextant, if you measure it at the equator you will get an angle of 0 and if you measure it at the north pole you will get an angle of 90*, this is only possible with a sphere.
Yes, what is the flat earth explanation for this?
It's not always that way, my parents have turned to guilt rather than cramming religion down my throat.
I plan to have as many kids as I possibly can because each child is a blessing and the more flat earthers there are in the world, the better.
Ahh I see. You're going to shove ideas down your kids' throats instead of let them learn by themselves? Sounds familiar *cough*religion*cough*
Exactly, that's why i don't say that the earth is definitely round when i debate on here, i say that there is very strong evidence it is round. I have not been to space myself to see so i can not say for certain that the earth is round. Much the same way, i can't say that there is no god because i don't know, i can simply say i do not think there is a god.I agree but that's why I said I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim to know there is no God and the word atheism to me is a very simple stance of not accepting a claim about a god. Even strong atheism, which I would put myself under, still only implies that a person puts gods in the same category as Santa, the Easter Bunny and Faeries. I'm happy to say "I know there's no God" in that respect but in an absolute respect, does anyone ever really claim knowledge?
Ah, excellent. You realize that the collective of all human knowledge is probabilistic and open to revision when you make factual statements. Many people do not. For the vast majority of people I've met, they see many concepts regarding the nature of our universe as completely 100% true and mean such when they make a statement.
Yeah, well i should have said gods, because the early ones weren't singular. It's mainly that all of the things the individual gods did was taken and put into one god.Well someone said to make a thread for it and they would put their two cents in because i didn't want to derail another thread. I said that god was created by people looking for an easy answer to explain everything. So the two that responded to me, go, say what you wanted to say.
In a nutshell, that's not a bad explanation for Gods. Although I would make one slight alteration and that would be the use of a singular god invented to explain everything. Early gods were multiple and there would have been one for each unexplained phenomenon. It's only much later that we see monotheistic religions appear. Basically as each god was picked off by growth in human knowledge and understanding all you are left with is a vacuous intangible nothingness that is now called "God".
I agree completely, but it goes along with my whole people wanting an easy answer to explain something that was at the time, unexplainable.Well someone said to make a thread for it and they would put their two cents in because i didn't want to derail another thread. I said that god was created by people looking for an easy answer to explain everything. So the two that responded to me, go, say what you wanted to say.Unfortunately, the god concept doesn't explain anything. It just complicates the equation. Using supernatural powers to will reality into existence doesn't constitute an explanation, but actually avoids it. It dodges the inquiry as to push it out of the mind by giving it a false answer. "God did it" is a far as religion goes to even attempt to provide a cause... So not only does it not contribute anything to understanding or the advancement of knowledge, but it makes large outrageous universal assumptions which corrupt many people's thoughts regarding what is known with what is believed.
How do you explain the tests they have done dating materials that we know how old they are based on writings? It's not like someone just got this idea and ran with it, they tested it before they ever tried using it.Sorry Mark, but I am not interested in radiometric dating. We do not know the initial abundance amounts of the elements found on earth. There is no scientific basis for this massive guess of the earth's age.The earth and moon are both approximately 6,000 years old. What was there before, we do not know, as RET does not know.
Kathleen is right.
Of course she is. Obviously the conspiracy is faking all of the geological evidence too.
You could just go create a thread about it. I'd be happy to post my two cents in there.Ok, wendy and roundy, i've made the thread, if you do want to put in your two cents put them in there.
I think the majority are simply ignoring it, except for W, i've been wavering with my stance on him, but his coming in here and commenting set him right a little in my opinion.A sphere large enough would appear to be flat when standing on any part of it. A horizon is the curvature of the sphere.That was my point i was showing with this whole thing.
If there was a flat earth there would be no horizon. You would just see infinitely in front of you where light touches.
And they obviously didn't see it, unfortunately.
A sphere large enough would appear to be flat when standing on any part of it. A horizon is the curvature of the sphere.That was my point i was showing with this whole thing.
If there was a flat earth there would be no horizon. You would just see infinitely in front of you where light touches.
I am not going to get into this debate as that is not what this thread was created for.To answer your question though, god didn't make atheists, we made ourselves, other people who were looking for an easier answer created god.
I am very much of the opinion that an easy answer is better than no conceivable answer at all.
Just because he "knows" doesn't mean he could or want to do anything about it.So god wants to be entertained? Also who said anything about christianity, he just said god, that could be for any religion.
Think of how boring life would be if we were all perfect christians. Even God doesn't want that.
But if he wrote another book saying that there were errors and he was wrong and his experiments didn't prove a flat earth at all, would you follow him or still believe in a flat earth?What if said book cited his error in his previous experiments and that they actually did not prove the earth was flat due to the errors?
There are no such errors.
I wasn't setting you up at all, just seeing if an FEer would accept this as evidence that even though the earth looks flat from our point of view it could still be a sphere despite that fact. I'm not claiming that you said the earth is a sphere, just that this is evidence that it's a possibility, because i have heard people say they see no curvature in the earth from their point of view, when it would look fla from our point of view.Interesting.I don't think you were one of the people saying that if you look closely at a sphere it can look flat, but is this good enough evidence to show that a round earth could appear flat from our perspective?
Hm, I can't help but think you are setting me up with this question.
Yes, anything looked at closely enough will appear flat, even the tip of the letter V. However, the earth is flat based on other evidence/reason, even looking at it from far away.
What if said book cited his error in his previous experiments and that they actually did not prove the earth was flat due to the errors?OK, what if someone suddenly discovered another book written by Rowbottom in which he said he was wrong in the previous book and changed his mind? Would you go along with him?
No.
Interesting.I don't think you were one of the people saying that if you look closely at a sphere it can look flat, but is this good enough evidence to show that a round earth could appear flat from our perspective?
Those photos are clearly faked. Conspiracy!Haha, well if you look closely enough you can see the same part is open in all three pictures. I made sure to include everything possible to make it clear those 3 pictures are of the same part. I am not using this as evidence that the earth is round, simply that a round earth could look flat from our perspective.
No i was referring to how waste of mind and others say that planets and other celestial objects have gravity but the earth does, but they can't explain what causes this gravity, therefore it is magical. Gravity with a round earth can easily be explained.The only magic gravity is the unexplained gravity in FET.Do you mean the UA?
Relative to us it is flat, simply because our sight is limited and it is a large sphere shaped object. Relative to the moon its round. Glad you've realized that.They're talking about the terrain, the Earth's curvature is not included. For example, if you have a perfect sphere, a very small area could be called flat, but if you throw in some little bumps (which would be mountains and hills) then that wouldn't be flat.The earth is relatively flat. What's your point?
This is just some common sense none of you FEers have been exposed to.
As well as the observations of these orbits. We can observe that orbits happen, moons orbit planets, what do you think causes this?You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.How do RE ers know the stars are moving so slowly on a galaxy scale if they can't even observe their "black hole"
With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.
There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.
You've answered your own question. We know their not moving because we can actually look up at the sky and see that the constellations don't scramble themselves into new positions on a yearly basis. Ancient star charts have the big dipper in them! Another way we know that their not moving extremely fast are something called Keppler's laws which use Newton's equations to figure out how orbits work. Kepler's laws show that the period of any orbit is directly related to the mean distance an object is from its gravity well. These laws imply that if the stars in our galaxy were orbiting faster, the galaxy would also be much bigger.
Also you're not using the word observe correctly. We can observe black holes. They give off radiation and bend light and we've even watched them gobble up suns.Or they knew that the earth was flat and starlight wasn't distorted by this magic gravity and hence predicting where stars appear in the sky is much more simplistic [on a flat earth] making it possible for their maps to be so accurate.See these laws are also based on the assumption of orbit.
Again, starlight from major constellations is not behind any other star, it has to be for the light to be bent. The fact that we know where stars are from star maps we could tell where they were supposed to be and knew that they were supposed to be behind the sun, and we knew if any stars should be close to the sun and where they would be. When we looked at the sun we saw stars that should not be there near the sun, and they were only there during the solar eclipse. This means the light had to be bent around the sun so we could see it, and also shows that gravity exists. The only magic gravity is the unexplained gravity in FET.No, that is not what i'm saying at all, you are obviously not reading what i am saying.Yes I am. Binary stars can be very close to each other and at some point one is behind the other which as you said would create more of a distortionThere is also very strong evidence of gravity existing, and this is one of those instances that puts forth evidence. Also, many FEers assume gravity exists but they know not from where, where as this explains it. Please actually read up on this, the theory of relativity, before you make any more assumptions because you are obviously not understanding it as i'm explaining it.I understand it and I'm using your own explanations. Also, this doesn't prove gravity as the source of observable star movement and as for assuming, I am merely questioning your own assumptions.
He already explained why we can't see black holes. The fact that our star maps can compare to star maps that people in history have made show that they move too slowly. Yes one day the constellations won't be there, but the fact is it takes thousands and thousands of years for that to happen. The Babylonians knew of orion, that in itself should show you how slowly they move.You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.You seam to be making two points here. Firstly you are technically correct that the stars do not move relative to each other because some aren't even in our own galaxies and the ones that are orbit the centre at different speeds. The thing is that stars move about the galaxy very very slowly. So slowly that our star maps will be just as good in a thousand years.How do RE ers know the stars are moving so slowly on a galaxy scale if they can't even observe their "black hole"
With regards to the effect of gravity on the light from other stars: The effect of gravity on beams of light is too low to even measure unless a beam of light passes extremely close to a strong source of gravity on its way to earth. Stars tend to be very far apart so the effect of gravity on their light doesn't come up when creating star maps.
There are a few important discoveries made by the bending of light by gravity. For instance it is not possible to see a black hole because the gravity is so strong any beams of light which get close to it get sucked in, making it perfectly black. The way we proved the existence of black holes was measuring star positions for many years until we saw the light from one appear to jump in position very quickly. Stars don't actually jump in position, so the effect was caused by the bending of the light by something with extremely strong gravity. We couldn't see any stars nearby so we hypothesise that a black hole wandered near the beam of light going from the star to the Earth and caused it to bend.
That depends on how close the light travels to other stars. If the light travels at say the distance mercury is from the sun it will be bent a matter of inches, probably more like fractions of an inch. If the light is behind the star it will be bent a huge amount.How can you prove the constellations stay relative? Those stars are also subject to alteration of paths if only very slightly. Also, if the light is only bent very slightly, then there's a pretty good chance it will be bent many times considering there are a hypothesized billions of stars in the galaxyLook at kramer's post for the bending of light. Like i said, the light has to pass right next to a star or be behind it, so unless that is the case the light will not get bent a significant amount. And constellations do stay relative to each other in our sky.You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.Again, stars stay where they are relative to each other, this is how we have constellations, this is how we find costellations. Therefore you can figure out where a star should be based on other stars.Well even if that were the case,But if it was the case, that means the star positions relative to each other would change depending on movement on the galaxy scale and thus you can't "know" if a star is supposed to be seen during an eclipse or not.
As for how gravity affects light, kramer explained it very nicely.
Look at kramer's post for the bending of light. Like i said, the light has to pass right next to a star or be behind it, so unless that is the case the light will not get bent a significant amount. And constellations do stay relative to each other in our sky.You are assuming that they stay relative to each other. This cannot be the case because of galaxy movement in RET. The light would be affected by different stars so while they might literally be relative to each other, their observed locations in the sky on Earth would not be relative because their light would be affected and paths altered by different stars.Again, stars stay where they are relative to each other, this is how we have constellations, this is how we find costellations. Therefore you can figure out where a star should be based on other stars.Well even if that were the case,But if it was the case, that means the star positions relative to each other would change depending on movement on the galaxy scale and thus you can't "know" if a star is supposed to be seen during an eclipse or not.
As for how gravity affects light, kramer explained it very nicely.
Again, stars stay where they are relative to each other, this is how we have constellations, this is how we find costellations. Therefore you can figure out where a star should be based on other stars.Well even if that were the case,But if it was the case, that means the star positions relative to each other would change depending on movement on the galaxy scale and thus you can't "know" if a star is supposed to be seen during an eclipse or not.
