Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flat Earth Theory
BuckeyeChris
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 11 (391415)
03-24-2007 11:25 PM


I thought some of you might enjoy a new (ridiculous) topic to discuss. The Flat Earth people (or the pretenders, at any rate) have gotten a bit more organized and have come up with better arguments than they used to have. Here is a link to their FAQ.
and here is their main page if anyone feels like dismantling something a little more off the wall than what you get here.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2007 8:31 AM BuckeyeChris has not replied
 Message 11 by Jon, posted 04-10-2007 2:49 PM BuckeyeChris has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 2 of 11 (391476)
03-25-2007 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by BuckeyeChris
03-24-2007 11:25 PM


ooo such pretty colors ... I like this page best: ANGRY RANTING (they even have special RULES FOR ANGRY RANTING). Perhaps this is the way to go with the "Showcase" forum - anyone can rant at will, until they cross the special rules.
Thanks for the link, I've bookmarked it for reference. Know any geocentric societies?

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BuckeyeChris, posted 03-24-2007 11:25 PM BuckeyeChris has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by DorfMan, posted 03-25-2007 10:27 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2007 2:30 PM RAZD has replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6080 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 3 of 11 (391487)
03-25-2007 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by RAZD
03-25-2007 8:31 AM


quote:
ooo such pretty colors ... I like this page best: ANGRY RANTING (they even have special RULES FOR ANGRY RANTING). Perhaps this is the way to go with the "Showcase" forum - anyone can rant at will, until they cross the special rules.
Thanks for the link, I've bookmarked it for reference. Know any geocentric societies?
I'm standing here looking out my tenth story window and ...... uh uh......it looks flat from here? Nuts to crack and we have the nutcrackers. How do you make a man see what he does not want to see?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2007 8:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2007 11:27 PM DorfMan has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 4 of 11 (391510)
03-25-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by RAZD
03-25-2007 8:31 AM


Know any geocentric societies?
"So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How then did the earth rotate around a non-existent sun for three days? And when the sun was created on Day 4, did God give the earth a jolt and send it on its circular route around the sun? Surely the most obvious explanation is that the earth was created FIRST of all the universe - as the Bible says - and the universe rotated around it - with all the planets created later on Day 4. How this could take place scientifically we examine below... The most likely model is that the aether is rotating around the earth as calculations show that if it did not, it would rapidly collapse upon itself." *
:"We believe that Creation was completed in six twenty-four hour days and that the world is not older than about six thousand years, but beyond that we maintain that the Bible teaches us an Earth that cannot be moved, at rest with respect to the Throne of Him Who called it into existence, and hence absolutely at rest in the centre of the universe. That is to say, we accept the model proposed by Tycho Brahe and used in all the applied sciences (e.g., practical astronomy, oceanography, gyroscopic theory, and space travel) to be the truest one possible." *
"I mantain that the strict creationists' defense of the Bible's inspired account of the creation of Heaven and Earth is half-hearted and logically crippled. Rejecting godless Darwinian evolution for the Earth's biosphere they accept the equally unproven and unprovable Copernican astronomy as "proven" with respect to the observable Heaven surrounding us. And the stranglehold of this misapprehension is, sad to relate, strong." *
"And not to forget: in 1980 there was an Elmendorf piece that offered a $1,000 "Reward for Scientific Proof Positive that the Earth Moves." It has not yet been earned and is, as far as I know, still open for all comers; but any fear of the challenger having to pay up I do not have... To promote the truth of our Earth being at rest in the centre of the observable Universe as a first step in Christian apologetics is in fact the only reason why I defend the Tychonian theory." *
"The primordial enemy, however, who entered Eden so soon after God opened up scientific inquiry by bringing Adam the animals to see what he would call them (Gen. 2:19), was fully aware of heliocentricity's potential for destroying the Faith by attacking the inerrancy of Scripture." *
"Peculiar, isn't it, how 4 1/2 centuries of indoctrination into factless Copernicanism continues to insert the "rotating earth" mantra into the most unlikely news stories 24/7? Peculiar too, isn't it, that the powers behind this lie are so confident of their academia and media enforced control over people's minds that "scientists" can come out within hours of this tragedy and claim that this quake has speeded up the earth's rotation by three millionths of a second (!) and as caused the earth to "wobble" off its "axis" by one inch (out of 506,880,000 inches!)?? This insult to intelligence was backed by NASA "scientist" Richard Gross and a dozen other "heavies" (Aren't you just a little bit tired of being taken for a sap by these mind-control clowns who would stoop to using this unspeakable tragedy to reinforce their evolutionary agenda in the unsuspecting minds of millions via the world media? Shameful...) ... This "comprehensive materialist cosmology" is what Creationists today are up against and, excepting a handful, they do not know it! Evolutionism does NOT stand alone as a Bible-wrecking, contra- scientific deception about origins, Satanically conceived. Oh no! Evolutionism is historically, philosophically, scientifically, and spiritually WEDDED TO a previously conceived Bible-wrecking, contra-scientific deception about origins called Copernicanism! Creationists can never successfully protect and advance Biblical Creationism by standing against the false science counterfeit of the Origin of life on Earth and at the same time ignore the false science counterfeit of the Origin of the universe founded on the Copernican premise!" *
---
Say, does this remind you of anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2007 8:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2007 8:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 8 by nator, posted 03-27-2007 10:07 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 9 by anastasia, posted 03-27-2007 9:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 11 (391540)
03-25-2007 6:23 PM


Gravity --- Creationists Explain
"The sun stays in the sky instead of falling down. Gravity should be pulling it down but it just stays right up there."
"Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? "
"oh well, okay about evolution...Using science what is newtons laws??? Stuff about gravity...am i correct? Yeah, and what was that law about something staying in motion...blah blah blah, i'm not very smart when it comes to this stuff, but i can beat any one of you hard workin studying atheist in an argument, simply because i'm right...and your wrong. It's very simple, but that gravity question...if the big bang "theory" is correct...then why is venus rotating on it's axis a different way then earth...???? Wierd wouldn't that break newtons's law for the big bang theory??? Whoops, did i just solve the case? Just call me professor."
"The image above, from A. D. Stolyar's "Origins of Representational Art" clearly shows pliestocene artwork involving a mammoth elephant stretched out in full gallop.
Another anomaly involving gravity; that could not happen today"
"Einstein said that time is relative. Relative to the gravity. So i think this is why secular scientists are misled, if there were immense gravity during the creation, then it seems millions of years to scientists, but it is not."
"So again, WHY do you accept evolution, gravity as FACT, without the proof? "
"There is less gravity at the outside of the universe than in the middle. all gravity will be pulling inwards. I have read earth is towards the centre of the universe. So what happens with the light from a, lets say, a star from the perimiter of the universe, the light will leave that star and as it gets closer to Earth, the speed will slow down. So the more gravity, the slower the speed."
"even the theory of gravity is wrong: it works in some cases, but not in others. For example, if I drop a book, then I can tell you how it falls towards the ground, but if I pick something very large or very small our theory of gravity stops working."
"There is no force of gravity when their is no air."
"When it [the moon] comes closer and closer it gets in the stronger and stronger pull of Earth’s gravity. How can it then resist that pull and start going against that attraction? Contrariwise, as it goes out to the apogee and is moment by moment breaking loose from Earth’s gravitational pull at tremendous speed, how can it stop the outward movement and start back?? If everything is attracted to everything. The entire universe should be stuck together in one big blob!"
"gravity in of itself is a joke. the way it reads you would think that objects of more mass have more gravitational pull than those of less mass, but if that is the case then why do we see the moon obiting the earth and not the sun???? or why does jupiters 'gravity' have more effect on meteors than the suns 'gravity'? scientists must be blind to these occurances...howsad..."
"The theory of evolution does not and cannot explain so much about the universe that we know. For instance, when and how did water evolve? How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble? How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?"
"Have you ever seen an airplane or a bird? They defy the theory of gravity. Dont' say stupid stuff..... theorys can be broken, that's why they're not laws....."
"The moon is what gives the earth its gravity pull/wind, tides. They say the moon was really close to the earth when the dinosaurs were on the earth. But if it were 1/3 closer ten it is now we would all have the ability to fly because the wind would be around 500 miles per hour. Now Im sure dinosaurs are strong beasts, but come on."
"and Maby there is no such thing as gravity but a downward compression of Air, that feels like falling, you dont know."
"The fallacies of gravity
just curious if anyone can explain these errors that many people are aware of when it comes to the theory of gravity
number 1. the way gravity reads, scientists have you think that objects of larger mass would have more of a gravitational pull then objects of smaller mass. so tell me how this makes sense
when we look at the sun we see the earth orbiting the sun, and the moon obriting the earth. if gravity were true, shouldnt our moon be orbiting the sun??? oh better yet, how come a planet way out in the distance such as neptune will orbit the sun, yet its moons will not orbit the sun??? something is wrong here, even at thise immense distances the moons will orbit the planets and not the sun, yet the suns "gravity" is strong enough supposedly to keep the planets in orbit.
number 2. why is it, only planets have orbits?? you could put a space shuttle in outter space and a astronaut will not orbit it. you could put the smallest pebbble into outter space and it will not orbit the space shuttle. why is this???? if gravity were true then surely such small objects would orbit larger ones, especially in space
number 3. on earth we see things that defy "gravity" on a daily basis. birds and airplanes for example. are you going to tell me that the gravity of the sun is strong enough to keep PLUTo in orbit but not an airplane or a little bird??????
number 4. scientists dont know how gravity works. or what it really is, and even then we see anaomolies in space that defy gravity
so my point is that gravity(like other scientifist "tHeories" is very on shaky grounds. it doesnt have the evidnece to back it up, and when examined critically it falls under the pressure(no pun intended )
show me a pebble that orbits a mountain or a bird that orbits the earth and then gravity will make sense. or better yet just show me how gravity works(if it works at all) and then maybe it will be more than just a theory
how do you evolutionsts explain gravity???"
"The earth's atmosphere also just happens to contain magnetic particles to produce gravity to keep the earth's inhabitants from floating away."
"Isaac Newton was the culprit. Newton worked before the time of the atomic theory, and more importantly, HE WAS AN ALCHEMIST. Because of his alleged proficiency in alchemy -- it was rumored that he could turn lead or other base metal into gold or silver -- the jews made him "master of the mint," because they feared a run on the Bank of England, not long after they instituted their "fractional reserve" fraud. And the trick unfortunately worked; not enough people demanded coin for their paper notes, and the Bank of England survived. Because of his prestige, Newton also became leader of the Royal Society, and his pre-atomic idea, namely that gravity was a property of matter, and not the effect of its cooling rate, became (un)scientific "dogma" in physics. In point of fact, it still misleads us, today. Dinosaurs walked like modern crocodiles do -- not upright. Peter Bros is quite correct to point out Newton's error. Like that other scientific fraud, Albert Einstein, the insidious machinations of world jewry are behind the corruption of our scientific knowledge."
"What i'm saying is, gravity works everywhere in the universe, except for the case of the earth."
"I know about gravity, and I think God pulls things to the earth. It is all in the way you look at it."

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 03-25-2007 10:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 11 (391551)
03-25-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2007 2:30 PM


proof?
"So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How then did the earth rotate around a non-existent sun for three days? And when the sun was created on Day 4, did God give the earth a jolt and send it on its circular route around the sun? ... The most likely model is that the aether is rotating around the earth as calculations show that if it did not, it would rapidly collapse upon itself."
And if you want proof ...
Michelson—Morley experiment - Wikipedia
The Michelson-Morley experiments proved that the earth is not moving through the aether, not that the aether doesn't exist ...
Say, does this remind you of anything?
Yep.
Edited by RAZD, : added aether to quote

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2007 2:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 11 (391562)
03-25-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2007 6:23 PM


Re: Gravity --- Creationists Explain
I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading all those quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2007 6:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 11 (391760)
03-27-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2007 2:30 PM


My personal favorite is the title of the essay that your first quote is from:
quote:
THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR GEOCENTRICITY
And the list of scientific arguments begins with:
quote:
1) BIBLICAL SUPPORT-...
LOL!!
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2007 2:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 9 of 11 (391888)
03-27-2007 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2007 2:30 PM


DrA writes:
We believe that Creation was completed in six twenty-four hour days
3 of which were 'days' with no sun? Hm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2007 2:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 11 (391900)
03-27-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by DorfMan
03-25-2007 10:27 AM


experiments.
I'm standing here looking out my tenth story window and ...... uh uh......it looks flat from here?
There is a fairly simple experiment that can be done:
(1) set up a stick so that it is exactly 5 ft (or some other selected dimension) above a flat surface with the stick vertical (set with a plumb-bob and with the surface perpendicular to the stick.
(2) measure the length of the shadow of the sun when the sun is highest in the sky (the shadow is the shortest) and record the time of day (measured in one place).
(3) repeat this for different latitudes and longitudes for the same day of the year in all places.
Predictions:
(1) If the flat earth hypothesis is correct they will all be the same length and occur at the same time of day (measured in one place).
(2) If the round earth hypothesis is correct:
(a) the time of day (measured in one place) when the shortest shadow is measurable will be the same for the same longitudes, but the length of the shadows will be different for different latitudes,
(b) the length of the shadows will be the same for the same latitudes, but the time of day (measured in one place) when the shortest shadow is measurable will be different for different longitudes (ie why we have different time zones), and
(c) when these differences are plotted out in 3D they will match little flat planes on the surface of a sphere.
This kind of calculation was done in a couple places by the greeks (and others iirc) and they calculated an approximate diameter for the size of the earth.
Eratosthenes - Wikipedia
quote:
The exact size of the stadion he used is no longer known; the common Attic stadion was about 185 m, which implies a circumference of 46620 km, i.e. 16% too large.
Not too shabby for a first approximation, especially given the level of accuracy of available instruments..
Aristarchus of Samos - Wikipedia
quote:
Aristarchus (310 BC - c. 230 BC) was a Greek astronomer and mathematician, born on the island of Samos, in ancient Greece. He is considered the first person to propose a scientific heliocentric model of the solar system, placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the center of the known universe (hence he is sometimes known as the "Greek Copernicus").
Aristarchus argued that the Sun, Moon, and Earth form a near right triangle at the moment of first or last quarter moon. He estimated that the angle was 87. Using correct geometry, but insufficiently accurate observational data, Aristarchus concluded that the Sun was 20 times farther away than the Moon. The true value of this angle is close to 89 50', and the Sun is actually about 390 times farther away. He pointed out that the Moon and Sun have nearly equal apparent angular sizes and therefore their diameters must be in proportion to their distances from Earth. He thus concluded that the diameter of the Sun was 20 times larger than the diameter of the Moon; which, although wrong, follows logically from his data. It also leads to the conclusion that the Sun's diameter is almost seven times greater than the Earth's, which can be taken to support the heliocentric model: the volume of Aristarchus's Sun would be almost 300 times greater than the volume of the Earth, and it seems illogical that something that large would revolve around something so much smaller.
Again, not bad for a first approximation, given the level of accuracy of available instruments. You could also - for a first approximation - assume the density of the moon is relatively similar to the density of the earth (it is actually less due to no molton core), and then calculate a mass for the sun based on the effect of tides and the distances of the sun and the moon and the first approximation mass of the moon. You would again end up with a sun being many many times the mass of the earth.
One can now try an experiment where two steel balls with the proportions of mass derived from such first approximations are tied by a (thin, light but strong) cable, hold one ball-cable assembly stationary at one point and spin the whole thing so the balls rotate about the point at a set RPM (enough to get the heavy ball off the ground and relatively horizontal) and
(1) measure the force needed to hold the center point stationary for (a) the smaller ball at the center and (b) the larger ball at the center and (c) the point between the balls that they would balance at if the cable were a beam (ideally with no weight).
(2) release the center holding point and see what happens with the two balls - do they fly off in one direction? or do they stay relatively close to the starting point? do they continue to rotate about each other at a point (a) at the center of the smaller ball or (b) at the center of the larger ball or (c) at the balance point between the two balls?
How do you make a man see what he does not want to see?
Lead him to water?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DorfMan, posted 03-25-2007 10:27 AM DorfMan has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 11 (394258)
04-10-2007 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BuckeyeChris
03-24-2007 11:25 PM


Government cover-ups, super hightech imaging software, government guarding of ice walls? All this, just to show people the planet is flat? What on Earth could their gain be?!
What the--?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BuckeyeChris, posted 03-24-2007 11:25 PM BuckeyeChris has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024