The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

[poptart]

Since the Earth is in constant rotation, (see the Foucault Pendulum experiment as definitive proof)

rotf...

NOT.

That is just proof 1 'tart. Do you really need to see the other definitive nine?

I think you better take the round globe out of your ass and figure out if water bends or not.

[Atomic Punk]

Pops, a few posts above I laid out a simple science experiment. If you have patience and a few years, you can prove to yourself the Earth rotates on an axis and orbits around the Sun as predictable as the ancient astronomers discovered (not sure if it is exactly what they did) and what navigators still use to this day.

At least you could understand a day is 24 hours and a year is approximately 365 days. Use your throwing sticks to point at the Sun to track its path, and a fixed point to observe apparent night movement of the sky at night and you may surprise yourself.

[poptart]

Bending water? What has your uneducated ass gotten yourself into this time?

Water is a molecule. It is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (H-O-H). That representation is not entirely accurate, as the extra electron pairs in the valence orbitals of the oxygen atom cause the two hydrogen atoms to form a dihedral angle. And these local differences in electronegativity cause water molecules to do strange things when they hydrogen-bond with each other, like allow you to pour a glass of pure water higher than the rim of your glass.

But water, like other substances, behaves and reacts to greater forces. Poptart, why don't you take a latex balloon, rub it against your wife's hair (I don't want to be responsible for removing what you have left of your coif) to impart an electrostatic charge to the balloon, and then expose that balloon to something particulate and small, like flour or sand. Those small particles, while billions of times larger than water molecules, will nevertheless stick to that balloon like a motherfucker. But wait, flour and sand should fall to the ground and should not "bend" around the surface of a balloon like that? Maybe God wants them to stick to the balloon. Or maybe there are forces involved that you have no fucking clue about.

Gravity is one such force. An object the size of the planet Earth exerts about 1G force on objects near its surface (crazy how that works out, isn't it?). So tiny fucking water molecules, which are otherwise just chilling and weakly hydrogen-bonding to each other as they are apt to do, will be drawn to the surface of the planet by the force of gravity, because it exceeds all other forces acting on them. And while this is off-topic, you should know that at the surface of the water there will be a relatively steady-state phase boundary, where some of the water molecules are transitioning to a gas, and a nearly equal number of water molecules in gaseous phase are condensing into liquid. We cannot make that out because the molecules are way too fucking small for our eyes to see. But it is going on, doug. Trust me.

Want to know why the Earth and most other massive stellar objects are in the form of a sphere? Here is a concise explanation:

Quote:
Gravity is the force that keeps us on our planet by drawing us so powerfully towards its centre. It has much the same effect on everything else floating in the cosmos, as long as it is big enough. All objects in the Universe are subject to their own force of gravity. It is one of the fundamental forces of our Universe. For objects larger than approximately one fifth the size of Earth, gravity (rather than electrostatic forces, for example) will be the dominant force determining their shape.

As gravity pulls matter towards other matter, a sphere forms. Why? Only a sphere allows every point on its surface to have the same distance from the centre, so that no part of the object can further 'fall' toward its centre. Gravity just keeps on pulling. Given time, even the highest mountains on Earth will eventually be levelled under its power.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... t_they_are

You are out of your league. Preach all you want. Convert everyone you can. But STFU when it comes to science. It ain't your calling.

Y or N to each, smart man.

- Does a 1 mile lake have an 8" bend of the water?

- Does Lake Michigan have this bending of the water?

- Do the oceans have this bending of the water?

Given time, even the highest mountains on Earth will eventually be levelled under its power.

Yes, we just need billions and billions of years to see this happen.

[poptart]

stick them in the ground pointing at the Sun to where there is no shadow during the days and then plot the ends of the shadows after a period of time (over daylight hours assuming those sticks are at the same depth in the soil).

Then do the same experiment each month and compare the track lines to observe relative motion and the Sun's declination. That in itself will prove the Earth's rotational axis is at a certain angle as it rotates around the Sun.

You've already built assumptions into your experiment before you start.

Angle of suns rays remaining constant.
Earth moving, not sun moving.

[Atomic Punk]

It would save you years of observation to realize what Ptolemy theorized and later Copernicus observed. However, the apparent movement of Mars described elliptical orbits.

Again, I gave you an experiment to give you a head start. For you to dismiss anything observable means that you are unwilling to discover that your theory is flat out wrong.

Once again I dismiss you as being intellectually dishonest. Enjoy getting your ass handed to you and mocked.

[poptart]

Water does not bend, moron.

Yes, it does.
Name it what you want.
I'm sure you will.





I posted this weeks ago, and you likely scrolled it, because you think you are smart.
You are not.


http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

31 miles away.
The smaller buildings should be COMPLETELY GONE from view, if the earth curves as you claim it does.

Half of the lower portion of the tower (below observatory area) should be completely gone from view.

Gee, I see them.






This is a very nice video.



SO much fun to see arrogant and ignorant ball-earthers scramble and flail as their balls explode around them.

[poptart]

Why do you resist science and education?

I obviously don't.

[poptart]

Of course. Can you shine a laser from the beach in San Diego that can be viewed by XXL in Hawaii? No. He can see the Sun and you can see the Sun at the same time. So it ain't an issue involving the ability of light to travel great distances through our atmosphere. It is that your laser would have to cut a chord through thousands of miles of ocean water, which it cannot do.

Why do you believe liars?

[poptart]

For you to dismiss anything observable means that you are unwilling to discover that your theory is flat out wrong.

Once again I dismiss you as being intellectually dishonest.

Discover away!

[Goober McTuber]

Here's an interesting shot of Toronto. Right after they levelled all of the buildings around that tower.



https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... cott_2.JPG

[Left Seater]

Why do you resist science and education?

I obviously don't.

Yet you ignore things that you can't explain and don't fit your map view like Southern Hemisphere flights.

[smackaholic]

Rack the fukk outta scrote! Best wytch in this shithole in a while.

[poptart]

Why do you resist science and education?

I obviously don't.

Yet you ignore things that you can't explain and don't fit your map view like Southern Hemisphere flights.

Why do you lie?

I said I was exploring those flights (and many other things related to southern hemisphere flights).

I also said that I WOULD have a take on them when I have something to add.
I don't, so I haven't.
When I do, I will.

Don't lie.

Just pitiful.

[poptart]

Here's an interesting shot of Toronto. Right after they levelled all of the buildings around that tower.



https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... cott_2.JPG

bwaaa...

That picture is taken from Olcott -- which is 40.5 miles as the crow flies, NOT the 31 miles Toronto is from St. Catharines -- as in the previous picture I posted.
BIG difference.

THINK!


Beyond that, the pic appears to have been taken from very near water level.
Those building we see in your picture should be COMPLETELY GONE from view.
And the tower, nearly up to the observatory level, should be GONE FROM VIEW.

Do the calculations:



This did not help your case here, to say the very least.

[poptart]

The second video is a perfect example of you being fucking stupid. 31 miles x 8 inches per mile, means that if your eye is at the water-line on one side of that expanse of water, you should not be able to see anything that is (31 x 8 = 248/12) 20.67' above the other shoreline. And you clearly cannot see anything less than 20.67' tall on the opposite shoreline in your photograph (each story of a building is about 10' tall). Again, your own "evidence" skewers you through both ears.

You can stop calling me names, saying I am stupid, and stop saying I don't like science, because you just kicked the living crap out of your own ass right here, smart man.




This same line of MATHEMATIC and SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE has been posted and chirped about by multiple posters now, despite me having posted the MATHEMATIC REALITY of things back on page frickin' 4 of the thread.

No, smart man, you are completely wrong.

Instead of arrogantly burping about how I'm stupid and wrong, you should have been READING MY POSTS.


The 8" curvature per mile rate is for -----> the FIRST mile.
After that, it compounds.



Notice how b is greater than a, and c is greater than b, etc.?

Educate yourself.
You need it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html



I want you to come in here and come correct.
Let everyone see how loud, arrogant and ignorant you are.

[poptart]

Poppy-Your kid "bending" water with an electrostatically-charged comb is evidence that what I say is true. Individual water molecules, being extremely small in size, are affected by other forces, like electrostatic forces. No water is bending. The positive portion of the molecules is being drawn toward the negatively charged comb.

Next time you need to read the thread and follow the conversation.
You blurted in and started talking about water molecules, and it just made you look ridiculous.


Moving Sale tried for a few days to get Jay to answer a simple question.
He said...

Do you believe that a lake, one mile from shore to shore, is flat (as it appears to me) or is it 8" diff due to the earth's curve, the same as one mile of ocean must be?

Jay said, "The surface of the lake, in perfectly calm conditions, given those parameters, is of course flat."
And this... "Now then, expand that distance out, say for 1,000 miles, such as a typical stretch of sea or ocean, then the surface, to the naked eye, will "appear" flat. It isn't of course, due to gravitational pull."

We're not talking about water molecules bending, and the term bend is just a synonym for curve in this discussion.

Jay said that ocean water curves (or bends) but a 1 mile long lake does not.

I have no idea what his rational is for this incredible take, but that's what he's said.

[poptart]

The last video, while long and boring (like this thread), shows the same thing. You cannot see the base of any buildings in Toronto or in Niagara Falls. The wire the gentleman is attempting to use as a line of perspective is several feet above the water. And he is several feet behind it. So, again, using math, there would be almost no perceptible difference (20.67' over 31 miles is 20.67/31 x 5,280 x 100 = 0.012% change from one side to the other. Imperceptible. Like your ability to reason.

bwaaa...

Dead wrong.
See my previous post.

You think you know your math, but you do not.

You can come in and come correct on this, also.


The kid's video is -----> GREAT!

[poptart]

You do not understand what you observe. At first I thought it was because you were blinded by a desire not to contradict anything in your Good Book. But now I'm beginning to believe you are just incapable of comprehending the science of the phenomena you observe with your own eyes. I'm going to light a candle for you.

Hahahahahaha!!


I should not take delight in this, but I do.
I repent.
See my next post...

[poptart]

Job 38:1-4
[1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
[2] Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
[3] Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
[4] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

[Goober McTuber]

Here's an interesting shot of Toronto. Right after they levelled all of the buildings around that tower.



https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... cott_2.JPG

bwaaa...

That picture is taken from Olcott -- which is 40.5 miles as the crow flies, NOT the 31 miles Toronto is from St. Catharines -- as in the previous picture I posted.
BIG difference.

So, did the earth curve there, or what, you delusional tard?

[Goober McTuber]

[Smackie Chan]

Why do you believe lying Scots?

[Goober McTuber]

Better than believing lying American-Koreans.

[Smackie Chan]

I mentioned on pg 5 that this thread had passed what I felt was a reasonable shelf life for such absurdity, but I obviously was quite wrong, and have recognized my misguidedness. I've changed my tune, and now believe we should see if we can make it to 50 pgs.

I confess to not having read every post, clicked every link, or watched every video posted in this thread. To those who have, I'm not sure if I should applaud you or offer condolences. So it's possible I may have overlooked discussion of "the missing day" if it's already been brought up herein.

There are (at least) two passages in the Bible relating events that simply could not have happened without there being catastrophic results if the Earth behaves as we've been taught it does based on its being part of a solar system. The first is Joshua 10:13, where it is written that "the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down about a whole day." The second is in 2 Kings 20:11, which reads "And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." Basically, God made the sun stop in the first instance, and go backwards in the second. In either case, what really happened if we believe the Earth rotates on its axis was that God stopped the Earth from rotating for "about a whole day" in Joshua, and made it rotate backwards in 2 Kings. This would result in very bad things for us earthlings if we are to believe what we've been taught about us living on a rapidly rotating sphere.

Such catastrophes would not occur, however, if the Earth is stationary and the sun moves about it. God could simply do what he wants with the sun, and everything remains relatively hunky dory here. The combined length of time "lost" by these two events has been calculated by the faithful to be exactly one day, and some scientists have attempted to corroborate it.

Take snopes for what it's worth, but there's a decent discussion of it there, which includes:

The appeal of this legend isn't difficult to see: the tale confirms not only the existence of God, but also the literal truth of the Bible. Moreover, it pits the scientists versus the believers, with the believers emerging victorious and the (presumed godless) scientists left ground into dust by the very science they'd so long and so loudly upheld. David (in the form of the pure-hearted believer) takes on the Goliath of Science who continally bleats for independently verifiable proof of the Almighty, and for once the faithful are able to deliver up on a silver platter what's been asked for.

To those who've given over their hearts to God and the Holy Word, this is a deeply satisfying legend. Faith is, after all, the firm belief in something which cannot necessarily be proved, a quality that can leave believers (especially those who find themselves in the midst of non-believers) feeling unsatisfied. As steadfast as their certainty is, they cannot prove the rightness of the path they tread to those who jeer at their convictions. And this is a heavy burden to shoulder. A legend such as the "missing day explained" tale speaks straight to the hearts of those who yearn for a bit of vindication in this life. Being right isn't always enough: sometimes what one most longs for is sweet recognition from others.

That recognition, and that satisfaction, is what this legend provides. Intoxicatingly heady stuff, that. No wonder this tale has survived from generation to generation and withstood the ravages of countless debunkings. Nonetheless, its factual details are wrong, the scientific processes it describes are dubious, and its premise of a "missing day" depends upon some very selective and questionable intepretations of scripture.

Authenticity matters little, though: our willingness to accept legends depends far more upon their expression of concepts we want to believe than upon their plausibility. If the sun once really did stand still for a day, the best evidence we'd have for proving it would be the accounts of people who saw it happen. That is what the Bible is said to offer. Some people accept that as sufficient proof, and others don't.

[Left Seater]

Pop you demand proof from NASA on their photos. Are you demanding the same proof of location on these Toronto photos? Where is the identifiable marker that proves the camera was 31 miles away?

Further in the photos you posted why can't we see the Sky Dome in the further one? That big white roof would clearly show up?

Why are your flat earthers claiming that flights from Sydney to South America flew three times faster than other flights and the reason some are delayed is due to pilot error in not flying fast enough? Also are all the passengers in on the cover up since a flight from Sydney to South America would go across the US on your flat earth map?

[mvscal]

Pop you demand proof from NASA on their photos. Are you demanding the same proof of location on these Toronto photos? Where is the identifiable marker that proves the camera was 31 miles away?

If the earth was really flat it wouldn't make any difference if the pic was taken 31 miles or 40 miles away.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Jay said, "The surface of the lake, in perfectly calm conditions, given those parameters, is of course flat."
And this... "Now then, expand that distance out, say for 1,000 miles, such as a typical stretch of sea or ocean, then the surface, to the naked eye, will "appear" flat. It isn't of course, due to gravitational pull."

We're not talking about water molecules bending, and the term bend is just a synonym for curve in this discussion.

Jay said that ocean water curves (or bends) but a 1 mile long lake does not.

I have no idea what his rational is for this incredible take, but that's what he's said.

Completely out of context poptart. I said, perhaps poorly, that the surface of said lake "seems" to be flat. I have repeated this over and over. 88 hit all of the salient points of your three questions perfectly, so no need to repeat those answers here. All water is subject to the laws of gravitational force, etc. that 88 mentioned. It's simple physics.

Now then, another example that has been covered before is line of sight, as well as what a viewpoint is like the higher you ascend. Standing in a flat plateau, you look ahead of you towards the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.

Then, you climb up the closest hill – the higher the better. You then look again, strain your eyes, stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.

The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses, trees or hills obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.

This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:





Also covered were the varying star constellations. An observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.



After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.”

The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:



There is also the matter of time zones.

If the time in New York is 12:00pm, the sun would be in the middle of the sky. In Beijing, it’s 12:00am, midnight, and the sun is nowhere to be found.

In Adelaide, Australia, it is 1:30am. More than 13 hours ahead. There, the sunset is long gone – so much so, that it’s soon going to rise up again in the beginning of a new day.



This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vise versa. That allows for time differences and time zones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.

Another point concerning time zones, the sun and flat/spherical Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionaly located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would have seen the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). The same way you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you – the crowd – are in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate time zones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.



There are other examples to show proof of a round Earth, but you can digest these for a while.

[Goober McTuber]

This should help clear things up.

(CNN) - On Sunday night and early Monday morning, much of the Earth will witness a glorious heavenly event.

The night of September 27-28 will showcase a lunar eclipse coupled with a "supermoon" -- a full moon that appears larger because it's at perigee, the closest point of its orbit with Earth. The concurrence is relatively rare, having not happened since 1982.

Though some observers are viewing the date with fear -- calling the eclipse a "blood moon" -- for astronomers and stargazers the event is to be welcomed with celebration.

"It's a beautiful sight in the nighttime sky," says Mark Hammergren, an astronomer at Chicago's Adler Planetarium. "It's a way of connecting us to the universe at large. It gives us this view that there's a bigger picture than just what we're concerned with in our daily lives."

The entire eclipse, from first shadow to last, will be visible from most of the Americas -- including the eastern half of the United States -- Greenland, Western Europe, western Africa north of the equator and parts of Antarctica. Other portions of the world, including western North America, the rest of Europe and Africa and a swath of western Asia, will see most of the drama, though they'll miss the first or fading bites of the moon.

In the United States, observatories are hosting a variety of festivities to showcase the eclipse and supermoon.

The University of Nebrask Omaha is opening its Durham Science Center observatory and planetarium to the public, adding telescopes with smart phone adapters so visitors can take pictures. The Kopernik Observatory & Science Center, near Binghamton, New York; the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles; and Hammergren's own Adler are planning moon parties for what the Cincinnati Observatory is calling "THE astronomical event of the year."

Can't make it to a planetarium? NASA TV will have live eclipse coverage that you can watch in the comfort of your own home.

The Earth's shadow will start making its way across the moon at 8:11 p.m. ET. The total eclipse begins at 10:11 p.m. ET and will peak at 10:47 p.m. ET. The total eclipse will last about 72 minutes.

Hammergren points out that these astronomical events link humanity to history. We've been watching the skies for thousands of years, creating mythology, arriving at scientific discoveries and simply taking pleasure in the movement of celestial bodies.

"Astronomy, in particular, is something that hooks us up to our most ancient roots," he says.

For some, astronomy also provides clues to earthly futures -- and this particular "blood moon," as some end-times believers call the lunar eclipse for the reddish tint of the earth's shadow, is revealing of particularly troubled times to come.

The eclipse is said to be the last of a "tetrad," four consecutive total lunar eclipses, each separated by six lunar months, that took place on Jewish holidays. (The first three in the current series took place April 15, 2014; October 8, 2014; and April 4, 2015.) Some Christian ministers have theorized that the sequence has earth-shaking significance, noting that other tetrads took place in key years in history, including 1492 (Jewish expulsion from Spain) and 1948 (a Mideast war).

In promotion for his 2013 book "Four Blood Moons," Christian minister John Hagee claimed that the tetrad was a signal being sent by God.

"The coming four blood moons points to a world-shaking event that will happen between April 2014 and October 2015," he said.

And Mark Blitz, head of El Shaddai Ministries and the author of "Blood Moons: Decoding the Imminent Heavenly Signs," says that God is trying to get humanity's attention -- and we ignore it at our peril.

"There are always the naysayers and the agnostics when it comes to God trying to reach mankind in His urgent message to repent," he told World News Daily, which has been charting the eclipse's arrival with headlines such as " 'Blood Moons' expert: Get on God's calendar" and "Coming solar eclipse seen as 'judgment.' "

"Here we have had four total lunar eclipses in a row on Passover and Tabernacles," he said. "And just look what is happening in the world today!"

Skeptics have pointed out that claims made of "blood moons" -- a term that has only arisen in the last few years, Hammergren says -- should be taken with at least a few grains of salt. After all, their coincidence with Jewish holidays is logical, since the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar, and some tetrads' occurrence in significant historical years is an example of confirmation bias -- looking for connections that fit preconceived notions.

"People have been predicting the end of the world for thousands of years in recorded history, and not a single time has that come about," says Hammergren.

One prediction that's still being refined is one of the most basic: the weather.

As of Thursday morning, the Southeast United States is forecast to be cloudy on Sunday night, making for poor visibility. On the other hand, the rest of the country should be fairly clear, with plenty of opportunities to watch.

And there will be plenty of opportunities. As Hammergren points out, the supermoon eclipse is one of those events best viewed with the naked eye (though binoculars can come in handy), so anywhere there's a clear sky will do the trick.

It's also a great chance for astronomers to educate folks who may spend more time staring down at a screen than looking up at the sky.

"It's a great entry point," says Hammergren. "You think the lunar eclipse is neat? Let me tell about this other stuff going on."

But don't miss your chance at Sunday's supermoon eclipse. The next one isn't due until 2033.

[Mikey]

God + moon + red cellophane

Easy

[Smackie Chan]

NASA TV will have live eclipse coverage that you can watch in the comfort of your own home.

[poptard]Why would I want to watch something that's obviously going to be faked?[/poptard]

[poptart]

Here's an interesting shot of Toronto. Right after they levelled all of the buildings around that tower.



https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... cott_2.JPG

bwaaa...

That picture is taken from Olcott -- which is 40.5 miles as the crow flies, NOT the 31 miles Toronto is from St. Catharines -- as in the previous picture I posted.
BIG difference.

So, did the earth curve there, or what, you delusional tard?

LOL

You post a pic which *FAILS* to show us the 8" per mile earth curvature you assure us is correct -- and you then come back and call me delusional.

[poptart]

Pop you demand proof from NASA on their photos. Are you demanding the same proof of location on these Toronto photos? Where is the identifiable marker that proves the camera was 31 miles away?

Further in the photos you posted why can't we see the Sky Dome in the further one? That big white roof would clearly show up?

Why are your flat earthers claiming that flights from Sydney to South America flew three times faster than other flights and the reason some are delayed is due to pilot error in not flying fast enough? Also are all the passengers in on the cover up since a flight from Sydney to South America would go across the US on your flat earth map?

1. There are many such pics of Toronto taken from St. Catharines, Seater. And videos of this. In fact, there are MANY pics of many places over water which demonstrate that the earth does not curve as we are told it does. Believe whatever you want. I don't care.

2. Refraction. Also, the kid with the wire video plainly shows that water over a 30 mile span does not curve. There needs to be a 600 ft curve over that span. But what we see is that it is -----> flat. And we all know that water flows down, seeks it's lowest level and flattens.

3. I've now told you MANY times, I have no comment at this time on the southern hemisphere flights. You are getting nearly as bad as Jay. You've presented it. It's there. People are free to think whatever they want about it. When I have something to say on it, I will.

[Left Seater]

Yet you ignore things that you can't explain and don't fit your map view like Southern Hemisphere flights.

Why do you lie?

I said I was exploring those flights (and many other things related to southern hemisphere flights).

I also said that I WOULD have a take on them when I have something to add.
I don't, so I haven't.
When I do, I will.

Don't lie.

Just pitiful.

That was a week or two ago. Plenty of time to research it. In that same time I have examined lots of stuff you have posted and visited your flat earther sites. Problem is none of y'all can explain these flights as they aren't possible in your flat earth view unless you to LTS levels of conspiracy.

[poptart]

I mentioned on pg 5 that this thread had passed what I felt was a reasonable shelf life for such absurdity, but I obviously was quite wrong, and have recognized my misguidedness. I've changed my tune, and now believe we should see if we can make it to 50 pgs.

I confess to not having read every post, clicked every link, or watched every video posted in this thread. To those who have, I'm not sure if I should applaud you or offer condolences. So it's possible I may have overlooked discussion of "the missing day" if it's already been brought up herein.

There are (at least) two passages in the Bible relating events that simply could not have happened without there being catastrophic results if the Earth behaves as we've been taught it does based on its being part of a solar system. The first is Joshua 10:13, where it is written that "the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down about a whole day." The second is in 2 Kings 20:11, which reads "And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." Basically, God made the sun stop in the first instance, and go backwards in the second. In either case, what really happened if we believe the Earth rotates on its axis was that God stopped the Earth from rotating for "about a whole day" in Joshua, and made it rotate backwards in 2 Kings. This would result in very bad things for us earthlings if we are to believe what we've been taught about us living on a rapidly rotating sphere.

Such catastrophes would not occur, however, if the Earth is stationary and the sun moves about it. God could simply do what he wants with the sun, and everything remains relatively hunky dory here. The combined length of time "lost" by these two events has been calculated by the faithful to be exactly one day, and some scientists have attempted to corroborate it.

Take snopes for what it's worth, but there's a decent discussion of it there, which includes:

The appeal of this legend isn't difficult to see: the tale confirms not only the existence of God, but also the literal truth of the Bible. Moreover, it pits the scientists versus the believers, with the believers emerging victorious and the (presumed godless) scientists left ground into dust by the very science they'd so long and so loudly upheld. David (in the form of the pure-hearted believer) takes on the Goliath of Science who continally bleats for independently verifiable proof of the Almighty, and for once the faithful are able to deliver up on a silver platter what's been asked for.

To those who've given over their hearts to God and the Holy Word, this is a deeply satisfying legend. Faith is, after all, the firm belief in something which cannot necessarily be proved, a quality that can leave believers (especially those who find themselves in the midst of non-believers) feeling unsatisfied. As steadfast as their certainty is, they cannot prove the rightness of the path they tread to those who jeer at their convictions. And this is a heavy burden to shoulder. A legend such as the "missing day explained" tale speaks straight to the hearts of those who yearn for a bit of vindication in this life. Being right isn't always enough: sometimes what one most longs for is sweet recognition from others.

That recognition, and that satisfaction, is what this legend provides. Intoxicatingly heady stuff, that. No wonder this tale has survived from generation to generation and withstood the ravages of countless debunkings. Nonetheless, its factual details are wrong, the scientific processes it describes are dubious, and its premise of a "missing day" depends upon some very selective and questionable intepretations of scripture.

Authenticity matters little, though: our willingness to accept legends depends far more upon their expression of concepts we want to believe than upon their plausibility. If the sun once really did stand still for a day, the best evidence we'd have for proving it would be the accounts of people who saw it happen. That is what the Bible is said to offer. Some people accept that as sufficient proof, and others don't.

I see no question, so I won't comment.
Of course my take is that God stopped (or moved back) the sun.

[poptart]

Yet you ignore things that you can't explain and don't fit your map view like Southern Hemisphere flights.

Why do you lie?

I said I was exploring those flights (and many other things related to southern hemisphere flights).

I also said that I WOULD have a take on them when I have something to add.
I don't, so I haven't.
When I do, I will.

Don't lie.

Just pitiful.

That was a week or two ago. Plenty of time to research it. In that same time I have examined lots of stuff you have posted and visited your flat earther sites. Problem is none of y'all can explain these flights as they aren't possible in your flat earth view unless you to LTS levels of conspiracy.

I don't follow your time schedule, Seater.
I don't dance to shots you fire.

No, there has not been time to research it properly.

If you think these flights we see prove the current model of earth we are given, enjoy it.
I certainly can't stop you.

Myself, I choose to look at A LOT OF THINGS these days.

[poptart]

Incredible.
But not really.

You do not understand math.

31 miles x 8 inches per mile, means that if your eye is at the water-line on one side of that expanse of water, you should not be able to see anything that is (31 x 8 = 248/12) 20.67' above the other shoreline. And you clearly cannot see anything less than 20.67' tall on the opposite shoreline in your photograph (each story of a building is about 10' tall). Again, your own "evidence" skewers you through both ears.

Just to be clear here, along with lecturing me more, you have actually chosen to double-down on these takes...

1. poptart is stupid

2. With eye height at 0 ft and looking at a target 31 miles away, just over 20 and-a-half feet of the body of the target will be hidden from view under the horizon.


Are these your takes?



Really?

[Smackie Chan]

I see no question, so I won't comment.
Of course my take is that God stopped (or moved back) the sun.

Wasn't asking you a question and no comment is needed. I know what your take is.

[poptart]

Completely out of context poptart. I said, perhaps poorly, that the surface of said lake "seems" to be flat. I have repeated this over and over. 88 hit all of the salient points of your three questions perfectly, so no need to repeat those answers here. All water is subject to the laws of gravitational force, etc. that 88 mentioned. It's simple physics.

The surface of the lake (1 mile lake), in perfectly calm conditions, given those parameters, is of course flat.

- Jay (9/9/15)


Your take now is... "The surface of the lake (1 mile lake), in perfectly calm conditions, given those parameters, is of course curved by 8"."

Yes?

[smackaholic]

Jay did a shitty job of explaining things. There is a curvature over a mile. It is an imperceptible one, but it is there. And I am still having a little trouble with poptart math. (8" X 30 = 600ft) And spare me the "it multiplies geometrically", or whatever the fukk it was you were mumbling. What you are refering to with your moronic drawings has some significance over 60 degrees of change. 30 miles is a damn near imperceptible change. 2 vertical line drawn 30 miles are less than 1/2 degree from being perfectly parallel. That is simple arithmetic. It is still to early in the morning to up my math game to trigonometry, but, that pretty much means that at 30 miles away 8" x 30mi = a little more than 20 ft. Let's call it 25 feet, just to error on the batshit crazy side of the real number. That jibes pretty well with your pics of upper meheeco.

[poptart]

And now you're going to triple down on 88's incredible arrogance and ignorance?

Really??




Ok, 8" per mile -- constant.
Mile after mile.
Let's look at what you're selling the other m0rons on the board.

31 miles away from the tower, 20.5 ft at the bottom of the tower is hidden from our view, assuming our eyes are at ground level.

62 miles away, just 41 ft at the bottom of the tower are hidden from our view.
lol


Is a light bulb coming on yet?

Is it?





The CN Tower is 1,800 ft tall.



You and 88 are saying that it won't be until you could drive 2,700 miles away (Venezuela, South America) that the entire tower would be hidden from your view.

We're in Costa Rica now, kids. But look back. Still see the top of the tower? Wow! Yipee!!


Excuse me...