Is the Earth Flat?

[d taylor]

Where do you find those particular details in Scripture?

Genesis 1 In Genesis 1 it is stated that the created lights were created to give light on the earth (1:14,15). So a conclusion can be made from verse 15 that, these lights were created to give light upon the earth. That there is no need to have a full spherical light shinning in all directions. My personal belief are that these lights are convex disk facing toward the earth.

Like this moon also

 

[d taylor]

-
​

This person tried to produce a model showing how sciences creation works. But he was about 500 yards short on the sun being from the moon in his model. he took great care in making his example but like all examples trying to reproduce a working to scale model it just can not be done.

 

[JacksBratt]

Really? What about the various other substances that expand on freezing such as silicon, gallium, germanium, antimony, bismuth or plutonium? Or in fact any spacious crystal lattices with tetrahedral coordination?

This is basic stuff that you appear to be unaware of.

They don't affect life on this earth.. as water does, being that 2/3 of the earth is coverd by it and it is a huge part of life.

 

[prodromos]

My personal belief are that these lights are convex disk facing toward the earth.

So an unscriptural belief.

 

[pgp_protector]

Love this quote.

In this article, we go over why people who use this tactic are not doing Christianity any favors… and why they’re doing nothing but making more people think that Christians are stupid and have mental problems.

Why Flat Earth is DANGEROUS to Christians

Goes so well with

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven.

 

[d taylor]

So an unscriptural belief.

We will see and i am looking forward to that day, not sure about you.

 

[JacksBratt]

The fool has said in his heart, there is no atmospheric refraction.

I never said that there was no atmospheric refraction... My point was that this is a very poor explanation for a fully risen sun and a still eclipsed moon..

Simple, the light source is orders of magnitude more massive than the moon.

It matters not, the brightness of the light sources. An object can simply not cast a shadow that is smaller than itself.

Especially when, when viewed from the surface of the projected shadow.. the two objects are identical in size. It's just a simple fact.

I can do it easily. The sun is not a point light source. It has a huge volume and light is emitted from every part of its surface in every direction. When the sun is low on the horizon such that you cast a shadow on a wall behind you when facing the sun, when you are close to the wall your shadow is sharp, but as you move away from the wall it becomes fuzzy as the umbra gets larger but your shadow actually gets smaller. It isn't that easy to see as there is a lot of diffuse light being reflected from everything else but it can be easily simulated if you do the experiment in a room without diffuse light.

Nice try. However, from the earth's surface, the sun and moon are identical in size. Therefore the light source is the same relational size as the object casting the shadow. The shadow will always be larger than the object that blocks the light.

What problem do you have with the direction of the moon's shadow during an eclipse?

I didn't have a problem.. However, NASA was having one terrible time trying to explain it... It was quite humorous.. I wish I could find the clip.

Physics isn't crazy.

They were not using physics.. They were using excuses.

 

[prodromos]

We will see and i am looking forward to that day, not sure about you.

I am looking forward to being in the presence of my Lord and Saviour in glory. I won't be giving the slightest thought to this little sidebar.

 

[prodromos]

I never said that there was no atmospheric refraction... My point was that this is a very poor explanation for a fully risen sun and a still eclipsed moon..

I'm afraid your opinion means nothing unless you can back up your opinion with evidence. We regularly see beyond the horizon due to atmospheric refraction. Incedulity is not a valid argument. I've already told you that surveyors have to take it into account.

It matters not, the brightness of the light sources. An object can simply not cast a shadow that is smaller than itself.

I said nothing about brightness. I waa only referring to the size of the sun.

Especially when, when viewed from the surface of the projected shadow.. the two objects are identical in size. It's just a simple fact.

Actually, the moon appears slightly bigger relative to the sun. If it was the same relative size (from the viewpoint of the observer) then the total eclipse would last only a few seconds, when in reality it lasts a couple of minutes. I now realise I had my terms mixed up and apologise for that. I was using "umbra" when I meant "penumbra"

Nice try. However, from the earth's surface, the sun and moon are identical in size. Therefore the light source is the same relational size as the object casting the shadow. The shadow will always be larger than the object that blocks the light.

The penumbra is larger but the umbra is smaller as shown by the above diagram. What you claim is only true of point light sources. If the moon and the sun were the same size then it would be pitch black during a solar eclipse as the closer moon would appear relatively larger than the more distant sun and block out all light. You also have to explain why the light from your 2nd light source, the moon, turns off during an eclipse.

I didn't have a problem.. However, NASA was having one terrible time trying to explain it... It was quite humorous.. I wish I could find the clip.

It would be interesting to see how badly you misunderstand their explanation.

They were not using physics.. They were using excuses.

Without seeing the clip, I have to assume you are full of it.

 

[Larniavc]

They don't affect life on this earth.. as water does, being that 2/3 of the earth is coverd by it and it is a huge part of life.

That’s not what you said.

“My point is that nothing else does this.”

That is what you said. So either it was a bare faced lie or you just don’t know enough about the physical sciences to be discussing this.

 

[Larniavc]

They don't affect life on this earth.. as water does, being that 2/3 of the earth is coverd by it and it is a huge part of life.

So nothing else is exactly like water apart from water.

We’ll done.

 

[JacksBratt]

View attachment 320534
Actually, the moon appears slightly bigger relative to the sun. If it was the same relative size (from the viewpoint of the observer) then the total eclipse would last only a few seconds, when in reality it lasts a couple of minutes. I now realise I had my terms mixed up and apologise for that. I was using "umbra" when I meant "penumbra"

Thanks for that diagram.. Notice, as this type of explanitory drawing always does.. the sun is shown to be bigger than the moon, from the observation point on the earth..

I have never ever seen a properly scaled diagram of this.. because.. it voids the entire "umbra" fairy tail.

Again, from the earth, we observe the sun and moon to be identical in size. This produces a light source, the sun, and the object blocking the light source, the moon, to be the same size and the remainder of the diagram is useless.

With any light source, that is the same size as the object blocking it.. the shadow will alwayse be larger than the object creating the shadow.... always.

 

[JacksBratt]

So nothing else is exactly like water apart from water.

We’ll done.

Sorry, but I haven't the time to explain the ramifications that would result in this earth and the ecosystems.. and geography.. if water did not behave the way it does.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm afraid your opinion means nothing unless you can back up your opinion with evidence. We regularly see beyond the horizon due to atmospheric refraction. Incedulity is not a valid argument. I've already told you that surveyors have to take it into account.

IMO, we regulary hear that "Refraction" is the excuse for the fact that we see way to far... past the curve of the earth.. in all kinds of weather conditions.

Refraction needs certain atmospheric conditions in order to produce the effect that happens from time to time.

In my opinion.. if you can see a fully risen sun... for whaterver reason.. then.. the moon could see it too.. and the light, that would be being refracted... would illumintate the moon.

 

[JacksBratt]

Without seeing the clip, I have to assume you are full of it.

Well, I found it... Enjoy.. I love the hands overhead pirouette the best...

 

[HantsUK]

-
​

This person tried to produce a model showing how sciences creation works. But he was about 500 yards short on the sun being from the moon in his model. he took great care in making his example but like all examples trying to reproduce a working to scale model it just can not be done.

And succeeds.
And if you watch the first 3 - 4 seconds (which I missed the first time), he explains that he scaled the sun by a greater amount. Still gives similar results, and successfully demonstrates the principals.

Using the same scaling for the distance to the sun, the sun would have been 460m distance and 4.4m diameter. I presume he did not have a 4.4m diameter lamp, or a 470m long and 6m heigh room.

To compensate for bring the sun closer, he also made it smaller.

But the angular size (which is what matters in this demonstration) was the same.

 

[HantsUK]

Thanks for that diagram.. Notice, as this type of explanitory drawing always does.. the sun is shown to be bigger than the moon, from the observation point on the earth..

I have never ever seen a properly scaled diagram of this.. because.. it voids the entire "umbra" fairy tail.

Agreed. The diagrams merely show the general idea, and are always completely wrong, as far as being accurately scaled. And as a result, can be misleading.

It's very easy to resolve. Take a piece of paper, an pencil, and a ruler. And draw to scale the earth, moon, and sun. You don't have to agree with the figures the 'official' sizes and distances. Just do it.

The problem is if you draw the moon, say, 1mm in diameter, and the earth 3.7mm diameter, at 110mm, this will be too small to show anything useful. But you still need to add the sun, at just over 42m (not mm) away.

This is why people use maths to make calculations, and to accurately describe what happens. No drawings or diagrams can be to scale. They can only describe the general principals.

 

[d taylor]

That is the gam

And succeeds.
And if you watch the first 3 - 4 seconds (which I missed the first time), he explains that he scaled the sun by a greater amount. Still gives similar results, and successfully demonstrates the principals.

Using the same scaling for the distance to the sun, the sun would have been 460m distance and 4.4m diameter. I presume he did not have a 4.4m diameter lamp, or a 470m long and 6m heigh room.

To compensate for bring the sun closer, he also made it smaller.

But the angular size (which is what matters in this demonstration) was the same.

That is the game of science, offer up clever excuses for their lack of producing a to scale working model. I had a few years ago, another science person try to do the same.
With a science example of the moon, that he was trying to show. When the moon is seen during the daytime. Stating it is being seen, in outer space and actually being seen through layers of atmosphere. By taking a picture of a golf ball as seen through an aquarium filled with water. Which he preceded to insist that, this is what is seen and represents the moon being viewed in the sky during the day.

 

[prodromos]

Thanks for that diagram.. Notice, as this type of explanitory drawing always does.. the sun is shown to be bigger than the moon, from the observation point on the earth..

I have never ever seen a properly scaled diagram of this.. because.. it voids the entire "umbra" fairy tail.

As @HantsUK posted above, if everything was drawn to scale, either the earth and moon would be too tiny to discern any useful detail, or the size and distance of the sun would simply not be practical. That is why you simply do the calculations with basic trigonometry and see what the results are. I've done this myself just to confirm and it all works.. I'm going to have to do it again and put together a nice, simple diagram to post here in the not too distant future, though I doubt it will change your attitude.

Again, from the earth, we observe the sun and moon to be identical in size. This produces a light source, the sun, and the object blocking the light source, the moon, to be the same size and the remainder of the diagram is useless.

Once again you fail to answer why your moon ceases to be a light source when it is blocking the sun. Neither you nor @d taylor have made any attempt to answer this.

With any light source, that is the same size as the object blocking it.. the shadow will alwayse be larger than the object creating the shadow.... always.

The sun and the moon are not the same size. If someone 1.8m tall is standing 20m away from you and you hold out your thumb 50cm from your face it completely blockes them from your view. Your thumb is only 5-6cm long, so how does it block something that is much larger? That same thumb can block a skyscraper that is hundreds of metres tall if it is far enough away.

 

[Larniavc]

Sorry, but I haven't the time to explain the ramifications that would result in this earth and the ecosystems.. and geography.. if water did not behave the way it does.

I know what would happen. The oceans would freeze. How does that stop what you claimed about water being the only substance less dense as a solid?

Or all the other well known aspects of reality that seem to baffle you?