FLAT EARTH.

[Meowzltov]

You'd be surprised to find Scientists rarely operate without scores of personal and factual assumptions.
In fact, any theory is a presumption before the results.

A true scientist is only interested in finding the truth. Thus, if the evidence shows that their hypothesis is wrong, the experiment is still a success for them. I'm sorry you have never known any such men and women.

I think you are confusing a theory with a hypothesis. It is hypotheses that are tested. They are tested specifically because they are only hypotheses. A theory is something more like gravity, where all the test evidence backs a general idea conclusively.

 

[Joshua_5]

If the earth doesn't orbit the sun, it still shouldn't bother you as both measurements are taken from the earth, just at different seasons.

The diameter of Earth's pupported orbit around the sun is used as the base of the triangle to make an estimate of the distance to stars (the angle to the star barely changes), giving enormous distances. If the Earth doesn't move around the sun, the base of the triangle is much smaller, the very minimal change in angle to the star between seasons can be disregarded as the star's own slight movement around its place, and the distance to the star can be calculated using trignometry to be in the order of hundreds of kilometers.

 

[Joshua_5]

what theory?

Can you clarify which is the "excuse": atmospheric refraction or Quantus Airlines' daily Auckaland to Samtiago flight?

Heliocentrists claim as a "proof" that Earth is a giant ball, a pupported fact that a lunar eclipse is caused by the Earth's shadow on the moon, when the sun is directly behind the Earth. So someone witnessing a lunar eclipse with the sun above the horizon would disprove this claim.

But, when this example and many more from history are provided to disprove the "proof" that heliocentrism can explain lunar eclipses (or more brazenly, that the absence of such examples disproves Earth being flat), heliocentrists just resort to another theory (atmospheric refraction) being the cause of the sun being seen above the horizon. You claim atmospheric refraction without any atmospheric data to justify its existence at the time and place (or its predictability before the fact by location). I simply state that the "proof" you offered of your theory heliocentrism, has been invalidated, and all you can offer are excuses as to why the theory doesn't match the real world facts.

 

[Joshua_5]

No, I am not. I can read biblical Hebrew, I know "yom" can mean anywhere from any part of one day, to 24 hours, to an undetermined amount of time. But when, "evening and morning" are added to yom, the context forces a 24 hour period. I have no interest in this topic (flat earth) and am moving on. See you in another thread.

I can't figure out how to reply to conversations. But yes, I believe that the earth is motionless and that the stars are in orbit around us.

 

[SilverBear]

Heliocentrists claim as a "proof" that Earth is a giant ball, a pupported fact that a lunar eclipse is caused by the Earth's shadow on the moon, when the sun is directly behind the Earth. So someone witnessing a lunar eclipse with the sun above the horizon would disprove this claim.

But, when this example and many more from history are provided to disprove the "proof" that heliocentrism can explain lunar eclipses (or more brazenly, that the absence of such examples disproves Earth being flat), heliocentrists just resort to another theory (atmospheric refraction) being the cause of the sun being seen above the horizon. You claim atmospheric refraction without any atmospheric data to justify its existence at the time and place (or its predictability before the fact by location).

We experience atmospheric on a daily basis. I would ask if you could provide evidence that the physical properties or light and our atmosphere are intermittent but we both know the answer.

I simply state that the "proof" you offered of your theory heliocentrism, has been invalidated, and all you can offer are excuses as to why the theory doesn't match the real world facts.

invalidated? No you have just stuck your fingers in your ears, not quite the same thing.

 

[SilverBear]

I can't figure out how to reply to conversations. But yes, I believe that the earth is motionless and that the stars are in orbit around us.

Then how can there be any parallax?

 

[Joshua_5]

We experience atmospheric on a daily basis. I would ask if you could provide evidence that the physical properties or light and our atmosphere are intermittent but we both know the answer.

invalidated? No you have just stuck your fingers in your ears, not quite the same thing.

Actually, it is you who have just stuck your fingers in your ears, as your proof the Earth is a sphere (by the claim there is never a lunar eclipse with the sun above the horizon), is demonstrably false. You retorted atmospheric effects, without any evidence that the atmosphere had anything to do with it, but atmospheric effects or no, the heliocentric claim is false and therefore the "proof" invalid.

 

[mmksparbud]

In order to understand how a man experiences a visible object such as the flesh of man or the ground they stand on, you need to listen to the very deepest teachings of the Holy Spirit. The Earth is not a real planet made of matter ( material ). It is an illusion that is formed in a man's mind as he observes it with his created sense of sight. So this means the Earth is not there unless it is observed by an observer. This goes into quantum mechanics that physicists understand but it was the Holy Spirit that taught me all these things that physicists understand. However, I the spirit of God taught me much deeper knowledge than any scientist or religious person has ever known during this first age.

Here's the first two sentences in Genesis to back up the knowledge that was revealed to me about the Earth not being made of material things ( matter ).

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 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.

The earth was not created as a formed object. It was created as information in the form of invisible waves ( God's Word ). The earth was void meaning it doesn't exist as a material object. It is a total illusion that's formed as it's observed by an observer.

The only way we learned that the Earth was a big planet was by each observers sharing his and her experiences with the ground ( Earth ) they observe. If man never communicated their experiences with each other, no one would have known we're living on a big planet called Earth.

The only part of the Earth one individual observer can see is whatever part of it he or she is walking on, driving on or flying over. All the camera's and video's of the Earth are also illusions that are formed in each individual mind as it's observed by the created sense of sight. The Earth is not real at all.

http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mt/translation1.html

Genesis 1:1
in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land,

That--fattened--as in filled in. At some time, who knows when, God set up the core of this earth--rock, earth, water-it was empty, dark. And could have been so for eons.
Genesis 1:2
and the land had existed in confusion and was unfilled, and darkness was upon the face of the deep sea and the wind of Elohiym was fluttering upon the face of the waters,
Genesis 1:3
and Elohiym said, light will exist, and light existed,
Genesis 1:4
and Elohiym saw the light given that it was functional, and Elohiym made a separation between the light and the darkness,
Genesis 1:5
and Elohiym called out to the light,day, and to the darkness he called out, night, and evening existed and morning existed, day one,
It doesn't say sunlight. Just He created light. And the first 24 hr day--the earth was rotating at this point, and formed, causing the 24 hr day.

 

[mmksparbud]

Genesis 1:11
and Elohiym said, the land will make grass sprout, herbs sowing seeds, trees of produce making produce to his kind which his seed is in him upon the land, and he existed so,
Genesis 1:12
and the land brought out grass, herbs sowing seeds to his kind, and trees making produce which has his seed in him to his kind, and Elohiym saw that it was functional,
Genesis 1:13
and evening existed and morning existed, a third day,

And it existed ---and was functional---evening and morning, day 3--all quite real, because He said so. What God says--is. That is the only realty.

 

[Ken Rank]

Actually, it is you who have just stuck your fingers in your ears, as your proof the Earth is a sphere (by the claim there is never a lunar eclipse with the sun above the horizon), is demonstrably false. You retorted atmospheric effects, without any evidence that the atmosphere had anything to do with it, but atmospheric effects or no, the heliocentric claim is false and therefore the "proof" invalid.

Joshua, I have a question and I am just curious if there is anything you would add.

Obviously you don't believe that the earth can ever have a full eclipse. If the earth is flat, pictures of a full eclipse coming from Australia on a day when there is no eclipse in Kentucky would prove this out. Is there anything you would add to that or have I accurately stated your belief in this area? I am just trying to understand the sizing issue and I don't even think I am articulating this well enough. Will add to this as I can.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Genesis 1:11
and Elohiym said, the land will make grass sprout, herbs sowing seeds, trees of produce making produce to his kind which his seed is in him upon the land, and he existed so,
Genesis 1:12
and the land brought out grass, herbs sowing seeds to his kind, and trees making produce which has his seed in him to his kind, and Elohiym saw that it was functional,
Genesis 1:13
and evening existed and morning existed, a third day,

And it existed ---and was functional---evening and morning, day 3--all quite real, because He said so. What God says--is. That is the only realty.

What translation is this? I've only ever seen "And God saw that it was good", not "functional". Either way, neither "good" nor "functional" mean perfect, it basically means it's just working.

 

[Ken Rank]

What translation is this? I've only ever seen "And God saw that it was good", not "functional". Either way, neither "good" nor "functional" mean perfect, it basically means it's just working.

Actually, the test is in Hebrew. There are not tenses as much as something is either perfect (completed) or imperfect (in progress). You can't always tell by the English for a number of reasons including translational bias. (We all have a bias )

 

[CrystalDragon]

Actually, the test is in Hebrew. There are not tenses as much as something is either perfect (completed) or imperfect (in progress). You can't always tell by the English for a number of reasons including translational bias. (We all have a bias )

Oh, so that's the original direct Hebrew translation, then? If that's the original, why don't we use that as a widespread Bible translation if it should be the most accurate?

 

[Ken Rank]

Oh, so that's the original direct Hebrew translation, then? If that's the original, why don't we use that as a widespread Bible translation if it should be the most accurate?

I didn't say his translation was a direct Hebrew translation... I think the spelling is actually a poor and confusing transliteration of the Hebrew. All I am saying is, if the word form in Hebrew is in perfect form, the work is complete... if the form is imperfect ( I am talking grammar) then the work is in progress.

 

[SilverBear]

Actually, it is you who have just stuck your fingers in your ears, as your proof the Earth is a sphere (by the claim there is never a lunar eclipse with the sun above the horizon), is demonstrably false.

You have never demonstrated that there is/has been a lunar eclipse with the sun above the horizon.

 

[Meowzltov]

The diameter of Earth's pupported orbit around the sun is used as the base of the triangle to make an estimate of the distance to stars (the angle to the star barely changes), giving enormous distances. If the Earth doesn't move around the sun, the base of the triangle is much smaller, the very minimal change in angle to the star between seasons can be disregarded as the star's own slight movement around its place, and the distance to the star can be calculated using trignometry to be in the order of hundreds of kilometers.

What I'm saying is that even if the parallax were measured assuming a flat earth, the distance would be so great that it would blow the whole theory.

 

[mmksparbud]

What translation is this? I've only ever seen "And God saw that it was good", not "functional". Either way, neither "good" nor "functional" mean perfect, it basically means it's just working.

I posted what it is---and a link to it in post #291 It is the Mechanical Translation. It is a literal translation that translates each Hebrew word, prefix and suffix, exactly and consistently.

And just what do you think that "functional, or good" means to God?----'Oh, darn!--- I really should have given them a couple extra arms so they could be more productive, or, well---hmmm---maybe I should have given them one eye in front and one eye in back of their head so they could see where they'd been and where they were going at the same time--mmm--Oh dear, I probably should have given her 3 breasts, in case she has triplets---Oh, well, I guess this will have to do, close enough!"
Really? Do you think this perfect God is going to be satisfied with something less than perfection in His work????

 

[Joshua_5]

You have never demonstrated that there is/has been a lunar eclipse with the sun above the horizon.

It happens so often, they've got a name for it. "Selenelion".

 

[Joshua_5]

What I'm saying is that even if the parallax were measured assuming a flat earth, the distance would be so great that it would blow the whole theory.

Agreed, if the "parallax" were actually parallax. Rather than say, a star moving about its origin in the firmament. Neither theory has been proven.

 

[Joshua_5]

Joshua, I have a question and I am just curious if there is anything you would add.

Obviously you don't believe that the earth can ever have a full eclipse. If the earth is flat, pictures of a full eclipse coming from Australia on a day when there is no eclipse in Kentucky would prove this out. Is there anything you would add to that or have I accurately stated your belief in this area? I am just trying to understand the sizing issue and I don't even think I am articulating this well enough. Will add to this as I can.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I believe lunar eclipses occur, I just don't believe its the shadow of the Earth (in front of the sun) on the moon that causes them. I believe the moon gives off its own unique light, separate and different to the light (not reflected) from the sun.