A flat earth

[Wedjat]

Different 'latitudes' on Earth receive different amounts of sunlight, i think everyone is agreement with this. Weather etc varies across the earth. With a flat earth model, the sun would be smaller as it is in a round earth model.

The Sun is about only 30 miles in diameter, for the flat earth model. This does not contradict ancient observations, however believing the sun is huge compared to the earth contradicts the ancient testimony of man. For example Homer recorded that the sun ''dipped'' or ''sank'' into Oceanus (Iliad, viii. 485; xviii. 239). The ancient Greeks were observing the Sun as a very small object, a tiny proportion to earth.

How does the spotlight effect with the sun operate?

Also I read the link you sent me, but it doesn't explain why the ship sinking beneath the horizon can also be observed through a telescope.

 

[LightHorseman]

Different 'latitudes' on Earth receive different amounts of sunlight, i think everyone is agreement with this. Weather etc varies across the earth. With a flat earth model, the sun would be smaller as it is in a round earth model.

The Sun is about only 30 miles in diameter, for the flat earth model. This does not contradict ancient observations, however believing the sun is huge compared to the earth contradicts the ancient testimony of man. For example Homer recorded that the sun ''dipped'' or ''sank'' into Oceanus (Iliad, viii. 485; xviii. 239). The ancient Greeks were observing the Sun as a very small object, a tiny proportion to earth.

Could you possibly explain the chemical/physical processes occuring in the sun to generate heat and light then?

a quick off the cuff calculation shows that a 30mile D Sun would be consumed pretty quickly to generate its current energy output, so I'm wondering what new light you can shed (pun intentional) on its apparently unknown physical properties that stop this from happening?

 

[AV1611VET]

Alas, AV -- it's clear that Asythian is not interested in your baseless assertions; he's asked for evidence.

Yes, and he's making a mistake that scientists make that end up preventing them from ever exercising saving faith.

As you do not believe in evidence, there's nothing you can say to convince him.

I can quote the Bible, where God's Word will not return void.

But by all means, do try.

No, thanks.

Once I was convinced that God is, and placed my faith in Him, I ceased looking for any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Asycthian]

Just FYI, prior to Genesis 10, the earth was one giant supercontinent; called Eden or Pangaea.

One could walk from Portugal to New Jersey in just a few miles.

Given that curvature decreases as diameter increases, the earth would indeed appear flat where you're standing.

I personally believe that those who fell for the flat earth cosmology in the past were in the minority, as people routinely traveled up and down (north to south to north) and would realize that the earth is round.

In addition, and as I said before, Noah and his sons would certainly have vouched for a round earth from an eyewitness perspective; and those who refused to believe their reports would have fallen victim to what we today call junk science.

Have you ever read The Book of Enoch? It states Enoch found the edge of the earth and traveled there. All apocrypha, and early historical writings, are flat earth based. Some other examples: in Jewish Antiquities by Josephus (i. 32):


"On the third day he established the earth, pouring around it the sea"

This "sea" is singular, meaning Josephus believed the earth was surrounded by an encircling ocean (this appears in ancient Greek as 'Oceanus'). This would not be possible if the earth was a 'sphere' or 'globe', but we alreayd know Josephus was a flat earth believer based on his commentary on the firmament barrier made of ice.[/font]

Turning to the Talmud, the tractate Derek Erez Zuta (IX.13) says:

"...the white of the eye corresponds to the ocean which surrounds the whole world; the iris to the inhabited world"

Again, what is found here is reference to the classic flat earth model with land being fully encircled by water.

In Christian pseudepigraphical text Conflict of Adam and Eve and Satan it says:

"On the third day, God planted the garden in the east of the earth, on the border of the world eastward, beyond which, towards the sun-rising, one finds nothing but water, that encompasses the whole world, and reaches unto the borders of heaven"

Take note of the text i put in bold. It's again another classic flat earth model, with the world surrounding ocean.

Bible, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha etc is all based on flat earth. The idea that the ancient Hebrews or Christians didn't believe in flat earth, is in fact a modern invention by atheists.

 

[Chesterton]

Bible, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha etc is all based on flat earth. The idea that the ancient Hebrews or Christians didn't believe in flat earth, is in fact a modern invention by atheists.

That certainly was a nice thing for atheists to do, wasn't it? Quite generous to bolster the opposition that way.

I think your game here has become apparent.

 

[Cabal]

Gotta love it when the apocrypha get brought in....

 

[Asycthian]

Could you possibly explain the chemical/physical processes occuring in the sun to generate heat and light then?

a quick off the cuff calculation shows that a 30mile D Sun would be consumed pretty quickly to generate its current energy output, so I'm wondering what new light you can shed (pun intentional) on its apparently unknown physical properties that stop this from happening?

There is no error in the flat earth model, with the sun. However there are mathematical and scientific errors against the popular belief in the sun, as a huge object which the earth resolves around. A revisionist i know already has detailed all this:


Mathematical impossibility
If the sun existed, a horrible apocalyptic collision with the earth would be expected. While the moon would have to plummet into the earth, since our planet supposedly revolves around the sun, we should expect to come crashing down into the sun. While the moon is said to be 384 000km from the earth and the sun 149 600 000km from the earth, the sun is much bigger than the moon. The moon is said to have a diametre of 3476km, the earth a diametre of 12 756km (at the equator). Since the sun supposedly has a diametre 109 times that of the earth, it has diametre of approximately 1 390 404km (109 X 12 756). To compare in ratio the supposed sun-moon diametres and supposed sun-moon distances from earth, divide 149 600 000 (sun-earth distance) by 384 400 (moon-earth distance), and also divide 1 309 404 (sun diametre) by 3 476 (moon diametre). The respective distance-diametre ratio is then approximately, 389.18 : 376.70. The supposed larger distance from the earth, is compensated by the supposed sun's larger size.

Why then is the earth not swallowed by the sun?

Also according to mainstream scientists (evolutionists/atheists) there is no oxygen in what they call ''space'' or the universe. Yet, fire needs oxygen...how then is the sun burning?

 

[Asycthian]

That certainly was a nice thing for atheists to do, wasn't it? Quite generous to bolster the opposition that way.

I think your game here has become apparent.

I suppose you also believe your ancestors were monkeys, and the earth is billions of years old...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, and he's making a mistake that scientists make that end up preventing them from ever exercising saving faith.

And alas, you are not the man to correct him.

I can quote the Bible, where God's Word will not return void.

I can quote Huckleberry Finn, which will amount to the same thing.

No, thanks.

Once I was convinced that God is, and placed my faith in Him, I ceased looking for any evidence whatsoever.

When did you ever start?

 

[Ellinas]

Why then is the earth not swallowed by the sun?

Its the balance between the gravitational pull of the sun and Earth's speed around the sun.
If the Earth suddenly sped up, the Earth would fly out of the solar system (the sun wouldn't be able to hold Earth in orbit).
Or if the Earth suddenly slowed down, we would be pulled towards the sun by its gravity.

Also according to mainstream scientists (evolutionists/atheists) there is no oxygen in what they call ''space'' or the universe. Yet, fire needs oxygen...how then is the sun burning?

The sun does not need oxygen because its "Fire" is the result of nuclear fussion! You betray a total lack of even rudimentary scientific knowledge.

You are either doing it on purpose or there is really nothing anyone can give you to understand.

May I suggest you go to the Christians only section since here you are required to at least acknowledge your total lack in knowledge of any science.

 

[Doveaman]

Its the balance between the gravitational pull of the sun and Earth's speed around the sun.
If the Earth suddenly sped up, the Earth would fly out of the solar system (the sun wouldn't be able to hold Earth in orbit).
Or if the Earth suddenly slowed down, we would be pulled towards the sun by its gravity.

Can this be demonstrated at lab scale?

The sun does not need oxygen because its "Fire" is the result of nuclear fussion!

Can this be demonstrated at lab scale?

 

[Asycthian]

Can this be demonstrated at lab scale?
Can this be demonstrated at lab scale?

No Atheists belief's are supported by observation. All their theories are based on things that can not be observed, this includes evolution.

Also might i add, gravity certianly is not proven. What's proven is a natural law, that heavier objects fall by their own wieght - by a natural tendency i.e an apple falling from a tree.

This was known long before Newton and has nothing to do with a hypothetical law of attraction. If such an attraction existed, why does smoke ascend and not fall to the earth?

 

[Cabal]

No Atheists belief's are supported by observation. All their theories are based on things that can not be observed, this includes evolution.

Also might i add, gravity certianly is not proven. What's proven is a natural law, that heavier objects fall by their own wieght - by a natural tendency i.e an apple falling from a tree.

This was known long before Newton and has nothing to do with a hypothetical law of attraction. If such an attraction existed, why does smoke ascend and not fall to the earth?

Are you flipping kidding me?

Nuclear fusion has been demonstrated in the lab.

Elliptical motion via a central force has been demonstrated in the lab.

Evolution has been demonstrated in the lab.

None of the above are atheistic beliefs.

Start reading or stop trolling. Your choice.

 

[Asycthian]

Are you flipping kidding me?

Nuclear fusion has been demonstrated in the lab.

Elliptical motion via a central force has been demonstrated in the lab.

Evolution has been demonstrated in the lab.

None of the above are atheistic beliefs.

Start reading or stop trolling. Your choice.

Evidence? Just baseless assertion.

 

[Cabal]

Evidence? Just baseless assertion.

Fusion: Look up NIF, ITER, or any contemporary fusion experiment, they do fusion reactions all the time.

Elliptical motion can be shown using a suitable analogue, such as charged particles in an electric field (this is besides the massive amounts of, y'know, actual work done IN SPACE that relies on these kinds of mechanics).

Evolution - look up bacteria evolving the ability to digest nitrogen or Lenski's epic E.Coli experiment where new information was gained. And before you say that's not a new species, search this forum for lucaspa's list of observed instances of speciation.

As for them not being atheistic, the only person who can change your prejudiced mind is you.

 

[Split Rock]

Can this be demonstrated at lab scale?

Even better:
Ivy Mike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cabal]

Even better:
Ivy Mike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm kicking myself for not thinking of this. Normally the first place my mind goes to anyway is nuclear weapons.

Although cue the honking that "it's not labscale!!!!1"

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you flipping kidding me?

Nuclear fusion has been demonstrated in the lab.

Elliptical motion via a central force has been demonstrated in the lab.

Evolution has been demonstrated in the lab.

None of the above are atheistic beliefs.

Start reading or stop trolling. Your choice.

Personally I think we should let AV1611VET handle this -- he might appreciate being the voice of reason for a change.

Even dad or AoS might be able to field this one.

 

[Cabal]

Personally I think we should let AV1611VET handle this -- he might appreciate being the voice of reason for a change.

Even dad or AoS might be able to field this one.

They're not exactly...*ahem*....around right now.

Besides, I do recall hearing somewhere about the blind leading the blind.

 

[Doveaman]

Elliptical motion can be shown using a suitable analogue, such as charged particles in an electric field

Sounds like you are describing the Electric Sun, Cabal.