Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No it isn't. Catalina island reaches over 2000 feet.
What distance? Giant cargo ships like that don't go to Catalina island. San Pedro and Long Beach are much closer to Malibu than Catalina.
Its trivially easy to explain that video on the globe. You haven't even made a case for why it is a problem for us.
Now, would you care to explain why we can't see the lower elevation of Catalina? I'm guessing you'll just hand-wave it away, and post another video that I will tear to pieces, just like your first two.
1,000 ft hidden. As per his diagram, that would mean the entire tip of the island gone.
Full marks for creating yourself some wriggle-room with obfuscation though! but I'll again nail it shut with this one.
I have many more examples than you have excuses my friend.
Nailed it. Hand wave and a video.
That's the way, just ignore anything you can't answer. 1000 ft of Catalina should be hidden, that means all the bits you can see in the video, as per the diagram.
That the moon reflects the sun. This does not stop the moon from being a light to us, the full moon is enough to see quite well at night. So I believe that God made the two great lights and also that it is reflecting the sun.
The first light was neither the sun, moon or stars even though there was a day and night cycle. The light seems to be something else. Perhaps it was the suns light without the sun actually being present yet. We can only guess.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
I tend to believe God didn't make them first because a lot of ancient civilizations worship them, especially the sun. Making them later lessons their importance.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Again we have a day and night without the physical presence of the sun.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
Third day with a day and night cycle before the 'sun' as well as growing plants. Not that plants can't survive a day and night in the dark but obviously the light was there.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Since the moon is to govern the night it could not be too bright or it would turn the night into day. To me, it seems perfect just as it is.
Science deals with observations of the world. There are no absolute certainties about observations of the world.Unfortunately you've compromised to a science that rejects absolutes, which is no science at all. Theology is the king of sciences, and the metaphysics that go with it.
No. Science starts with observations, posits explanations for them (hypothesis), tests the explanations, and provisionally accepts the most successful explanation. This does not become a scientific theory until it has been well-tested and is widely accepted.Not true. That's modern scientific approach - posit a theory, it holds until disproven. FE works the other way, with deduction/ conclusion drawn from observation and experiment.
You misunderstand the situation - we have abundant evidence - multiple independent lines of observational evidence of that 95% of the universe, and we know that ~25% behaves like gravitating matter and that ~75% behaves like negative pressure. What we don't yet know is the particular causes of those phenomena.I'm suggesting, however, that when you have such radical mismatches and also zero evidence of 95% of the stuff you need to sustain your unviersal model, isn't it time to be taking a long hard look at the paradigm?
You don't understand how science is really done then.Unfortunately you've compromised to a science that rejects absolutes, which is no science at all. Theology is the king of sciences, and the metaphysics that go with it.
The fact that you would say that people posit theories shows that you don't understand science.Not true. That's modern scientific approach - posit a theory, it holds until disproven. FE works the other way, with deduction/ conclusion drawn from observation and experiment.
I never said that refraction or looming could cause us to see 325 miles. My point was that it is not accounted for it in any of the videos or your calculator you linked. You can definitely see something 150 miles away with these affects.Refraction and looming are limited kinds of effects. Snell's law, for instance, gives us the range of refraction expected in air. Many long range photos would require the air to have refractive index of ethanol to refract so dramatically.
No its not and if he did say it, then he is wrong. The cosmological constant is at issue not the observations we can verify, just because we have this discrepancy does not mean the observations suddenly go away. If I see water boiling at 180 F I may not know why it is boiling at that temperature or why there is a discrepancy of 32 F, but I do know that it is boiling.Have you seen the film The Principle? It's entirely what he said.
Whatever. This kind of accusations of dishonesty is just stupid.Of course Kaku wasn't suggesting we dispense with the theory. He makes a living out of it!
This is not the case as I explained earlier.I'm suggesting, however, that when you have such radical mismatches and also zero evidence of 95% of the stuff you need to sustain your unviersal model, isn't it time to be taking a long hard look at the paradigm?
It seems to me that you think that because we have to add a fudge factor to make calculations work, that invalidates observations. That is just not true. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.Of course it should make ALL the assumptions of this model highly dubious and questionable. Go back and read Hubble, he was of the view the obs supported a 'special central position' of the earth, so he added a mathematical fudge factor to escape 'the horror of a unique position'. Standard model unproven/ unprovable assumptions are certainly more the rule than the exception. It's science fiction really.
Science deals with observations of the world. There are no absolute certainties about observations of the world.
Science starts with observations, posits explanations for them (hypothesis), tests the explanations, and provisionally accepts the most successful explanation. This does not become a scientific theory until it has been well-tested and is widely accepted.
we know that ~25% behaves like gravitating matter and that ~75% behaves like negative pressure. What we don't yet know is the particular causes of those phenomena.
Indeed - that's why I didn't assert that.You'd be naive in the extreme to assert that material science is devoid of philosophical foundations.
Ignoring your straw man of the big bang, perhaps you could explain to me how God is a better explanation than magic - in terms of testability, fruitful predictions, explanatory power, unifying principles, parsimony, coherence with existing body of knowledge, and not raising supernumerary questions - particularly unanswerable ones?A science without a foundation in God is ultimately just magic eg 'Nothing exploded and created everything'. Well, nothing comes from nothing. Or where's the energy to get started?
I think you probably meant 'before you can describe observations'. Perception alone requires no framework.As above, before you can have observations you need a whole metaphysical framework.
Ah, the argument by mockery and unsubstantiated assertion. Usually indicates the lack of a coherent argument.Your universe is almost infinite and yet you know all these things. It's a miracle! Well, the beauty of God is He shows us truly it's impossible for us to wrap our 'great brains' around Him.
You don't understand how science is really done then.
The fact that you would say that people posit theories shows that you don't understand science.
My point was that it is not accounted for it in any of the videos or your calculator you linked. You can definitely see something 150 miles away with these affects.
No its not and if he did say it, then he is wrong.
The cosmological constant is at issue not the observations we can verify, just because we have this discrepancy does not mean the observations suddenly go away. If I see water boiling at 180 F I may not know why it is boiling at that temperature or why there is a discrepancy of 32 F, but I do know that it is boiling.
This kind of accusations of dishonesty is just stupid.
This is not the case as I explained earlier.
add a fudge factor to make calculations work, that invalidates observations.
You are the one that believes without evidence that millions of people around the world are keeping the flat earth secret and deceiving people on purpose using what would have to be trillions of dollars to do it.
Did you know that the refraction of air is dependent on its temperature, pressure, and humidity, and that these are particularly variable over large bodies of water?The refractive index of air as per Snell's law is insufficient to account for 'superman refraction'.
Where are you going with this? Suggesting he's edited the boat in?
Indeed - that's why I didn't assert that.
Ignoring your straw man of the big bang, perhaps you could explain to me how God is a better explanation than magic - in terms of testability, fruitful predictions, explanatory power, unifying principles, parsimony, coherence with existing body of knowledge, and not raising supernumerary questions - particularly unanswerable ones?
Perception alone requires no framework.
Ah, the argument by mockery and unsubstantiated assertion. Usually indicates the lack of a coherent argument.
No, that it's a cargo ship going from Long Beach to Japan or China. It is much closer to the observation point than Catalina. You don't know the distance, and you don't know how tall the ship is, so you don't know whether it should be totally obscured by curvature. But we can certainly see that it is partially obscured, demonstrating that there is curvature.
It was only after I researched geocentrism for some years as an atheist/ agnostic that the obstacle to Christianity was removed and not long after - boom! born again
Not interested in the boats or ship. Fact you can see most of the island
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?