The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[JudgeRightly]

Math and history are witnesses? Not in the Bible they aren't. What other leaps of logic and science based faith do you make? Rhetorical. I already know.

History as a witness:

And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. - Revelation 20:12-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation20:12-13&version=NKJV

 

[musterion]

They are shill operations to discredit the real thing.

Can you prove that?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm done with this!

I've asked a few people to help me with that experiment and if they agree (which I doubt) then I'll go ahead and do it but I now no longer care anything about it.

You all can waste you time discussing this all you like but I've read the last syllable of this insanity that I intend to.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread and won't be posting anything at all about this topic again.

I'm out! :wave2:

You are participating in this thread for the wrong reason.

None of us think that that Dave, STP, or Patrick are going to come to their senses. I mean it would be great if they did but that's not likely going to happen. The reason I love this thread so much isn't to convince them but instead to fortify in my mind my own arguments as to what I believe and why I believe it.

Letting Patrick or Dave get under your skin doesn't make a lot of sense to me. :idunno:

When you flame out like this it actually hurts your arguments and all the other arguments made by myself and others.

Do your experiment. Make your video we all want to see it. But don't so it for us.... do it for yourself. Do it so you can say you did and fortify your argument even further in your own mind.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Haha that's true... If I had to wager a guess I'd say that they want to save clean, drinking water. Salt water can be turned into drinkable water but it can't be done on a large enough scale...yet.
What baffles me is that you'll hear people say, "we need to make sure that everyone on Earth has access to fresh water" and use that as a basis for Socialism or more government programs, but how the fresh water would get to the people needing it is by pipe lines, digging, diesel machinery, etc which the same people would argue against and claim that it is destroying the environment.
Perhaps a separate thread should be created for this discussion. This thread is about the Earth being round or flat, or (as I think) is an ever shifting formless shape... JK, it's totally round.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

By the way....

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05055-7

 

[Derf]

You can say, 1 + 1 = 3 all you like, that doesn't make it true. So no, math doesn't lie. You can lie about math, you can use math incorrectly. But that doesn't mean that math is untrustworthy.



Manipulating and twisting data to bias one's own preconceived notions is not a proper use of math. But again, that doesn't mean that "Mathematics" are untrustworthy. It just means that humans lie to promote their worldview. True math will always reflect reality.

2 + 2 WILL ALWAYS EQUAL 4.

(Unless you're in base 4... in which case it equals 10, but even that shows the reliability of math.)

 

[JudgeRightly]

?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

None of us think that that Dave, STP, or Patrick are going to come to their senses.

This is ironic, as all of your senses tell you that you are not moving and are on a flat plane.

 

[Derf]

?

Sorry. Didn't notice the link had changed. Corrected now.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sorry. Didn't notice the link had changed. Corrected now.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!

That was hilarious!

 

[Derf]

This is ironic, as all of your senses tell you that you are not moving and are on a flat plane.

Not true. Our sense of sight tells us that things are going past us--the sun and moon and stars. You've chosen to interpret that as the sun, moon, and stars moving past your sight, but that's a choice you made--a frame of reference.

Just like if you were on a moving sidewalk, there's little to differentiate between whether you are moving or everything else is moving past you. You are USED to the stationary mode from before you stepped on the sidewalk, so you interpret it that you are moving and not your surroundings.

If you were born on a moving sidewalk, and never had been off of it, you could easily be confused as to what was moving--you or your surroundings.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Not true. Our sense of sight tells us that things are going past us--the sun and moon and stars. You've chosen to interpret that as the sun, moon, and stars moving past your sight, but that's a choice you made--a frame of reference.

Just like if you on a moving sidewalk, there's little to differentiate between whether you are moving or everything else is moving past you. You are USED to the stationary mode from before you stepped on the sidewalk, so you interpret it that you are moving and not your surroundings.

If you were born on a moving sidewalk, and never had been off of it, you could easily be confused as to what was moving--you are your surroundings.

:chuckle:

 

[AHPeeb]

Nope.

I'm saying that math proves the earth is an oblate spheroid.



So again, you're faced with the problem of murderers getting away with murder because no eyewitnesses are available.



So are you not able to apply that reasoning to passages that say "by the mouth of two or three witnesses"? In other words, Could "witnesses" also mean "objects" in those passages?

Can objects provide evidence that someone committed a crime?

If so, then they are witnesses by which they testify of a crime. By their mouths a matter can be established.



Or perhaps you're not paying close enough attention... Please read carefully.



I think you've confused me with someone else. My point is this: using only observational evidence to prove something doesn't always work.

No, "witnesses" in the passages that speak specifically about using their "mouths, words, and testimonies." cannot possibly mean "objects". Do "objects" have literal mouths? Can objects literally speak words? No.

I see what you are saying that evidence is used in criminal cases and evidence is used to prove or disprove something. But if you were the prosecution in a court of law and you said, "I'd like to call my next witness, this knife." You would be looked at like you were mad. What you would say is, "I'd like to point to the evidence, this knife." right?

I think I understand what you're saying. Just in the context of the passages you quoted, "2 or 3 witnesses" can only be referring to 2 or 3 actual people.

If you see something, it's real. You can't see something that isn't real. So no, observation alone is enough to prove to yourself whether or not something is real, at least it is to me. I've never seen something that wasn't real.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

 

[Clete]

You are participating in this thread for the wrong reason.

None of us think that that Dave, STP, or Patrick are going to come to their senses. I mean it would be great if they did but that's not likely going to happen. The reason I love this thread so much isn't to convince them but instead to fortify in my mind my own arguments as to what I believe and why I believe it.

Letting Patrick or Dave get under your skin doesn't make a lot of sense to me. :idunno:

When you flame out like this it actually hurts your arguments and all the other arguments made by myself and others.

Do your experiment. Make your video we all want to see it. But don't so it for us.... do it for yourself. Do it so you can say you did and fortify your argument even further in your own mind.

Okay.

I am sorry that I "flamed out" as you put it. I wish I had deleted that post before Patrick had a chance to quote it.

I'll do the experiment eventually. When I do, I'll post the results here but I'm not reading another syllable of Patrick's posts. They're far worse than anything Dave posts - far worse.

Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This is ironic, as all of your senses tell you that you are not moving and are on a flat plane.

My senses don't tell me that I am on a flat earth.

If they did....

- The sun would get smaller and smaller and smaller as it moves away from me. It doesn't. The sun stays the same size as it rises, when it is directly overhead and when it sets.

- The sun wouldn't set behind the horizon. Yet it does.

Those are the most obvious and clear items that affirm to my senses that the earth cannot be like the Flat Earth model.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'll do the experiment eventually. When I do, I'll post the results here but I'm not reading another syllable of Patrick's posts. They're far worse than anything Dave posts - far worse.

Clete

Good. And I agree.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, "witnesses" in the passages that speak specifically about using their "mouths, words, and testimonies" cannot possibly mean "objects". Do "objects" have literal mouths? Can objects literally speak words? No.

I see what you are saying that evidence is used in criminal cases and evidence is used to prove or disprove something. But if you were the prosecution in a court of law and you said, "I'd like to call my next witness, this knife." You would be looked at like you were mad. What you would say is, "I'd like to point to the evidence, this knife." right?

I think I understand what you're saying. Just in the context of the passages you quoted, "2 or 3 witnesses" can only be referring to 2 or 3 actual people.

So, basically, your argument boils down to "it's can't be a figure of speech because it can't be a figure of speech"?

That's what I'm getting from the above. Why can't "mouths" (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h6310) be used figuratively? (which word, by the way, is used BOTH literally and figuratively in the Bible).

If you see something, it's real. You can't see something that isn't real. So no, observation alone is enough to prove to yourself whether or not something is real, at least it is to me. I've never seen something that wasn't real.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

One's senses can be deceived. Just go to any magic show or look at any optical illusion.

Empirical data is evidence, a witness, against Flat-earth-ism.

 

[Derf]

:chuckle:

Ok, I fixed it so it doesn't say "you are your surroundings". Happy? :mmph:

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, "witnesses" in the passages that speak specifically about using their "mouths, words, and testimonies." cannot possibly mean "objects". Do "objects" have literal mouths? Can objects literally speak words? No.

I see what you are saying that evidence is used in criminal cases and evidence is used to prove or disprove something. But if you were the prosecution in a court of law and you said, "I'd like to call my next witness, this knife." You would be looked at like you were mad. What you would say is, "I'd like to point to the evidence, this knife." right?

I think I understand what you're saying. Just in the context of the passages you quoted, "2 or 3 witnesses" can only be referring to 2 or 3 actual people.

If you see something, it's real. You can't see something that isn't real. So no, observation alone is enough to prove to yourself whether or not something is real, at least it is to me. I've never seen something that wasn't real.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. - Deuteronomy 22:25-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy22:25-27&version=NKJV

According to your claim, that "mouths of two or three witnesses" means "eyewitnesses", as in "persons". How then could you even accuse the rapist in the above passage? There was no one other than the rapist and the woman, so according to you, that rapist should be able to walk away, scot free, because there was no one else around.

But that's not what God says to do, which is to execute the rapist, and spare the woman. How can they do what God says without "eyewitnesses"?

In order to have a conviction, then there has to be at least two witnesses:

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing,then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days.And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother,then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:15-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15-21&version=NKJV

If there is no conviction, there can be no execution, because God does not authorize executions without a trial.

Do you see the problem yet?

 

[patrick jane]

So what about this curvature variable? Can anyone here with math skills tell us why they use it, where it comes from and who decided first to use the "curvature variable"?

8 inches per mile squared means as you add each mile to the formula, the curve gets steeper because it's allegedly a ball. So
1 mile=8 inches*(1 mile^2)=8 inch "downward sloping curve" 1 mile out, or let's say we want to express that value in feet. 8 inches/12 inches (one foot)=0.666 feet
10 miles=8 inches*(10^2)=800 inches or 66.6 feet
100 miles=8 inches*(100^2)=80,000 inches or 6,666 feet

I learned that the distance to the Moon, currently alleged to be about 230,000 miles away requires a special "curvature variable" in the trig formula to conclude this ridiculous value. When you apply the directly observed values to the trigonometry formula, surprise the Moon is about 3,000 miles away.


Now to Eratosthenes. His stick experiment "works" because you must assume large and far away sun. If you assume local smaller (think 3,000 miles away, same as moon, as also depicted by the Masons) sun and flat Earth, his experiment yields the same results.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Speaking of curvature, the flat earther should be able to prove the actual route taken was actually a straight line:

https://gizmodo.com/this-is-the-longest-straight-path-you-could-travel-on-w-1825725532

Excerpt:

Back in 2012, a Reddit user posted a map claiming to show the longest straight line that could be traversed across the ocean without hitting land. Intrigued, a pair of computer scientists have developed an algorithm that corroborates the route, while also demonstrating the longest straight line that can be taken on land.

The researchers, Rohan Chabukswar from United Technologies Research Center Ireland, and Kushal Mukherjee from IBM Research India, created the algorithm in response to a map posted by reddit user user kepleronlyknows, who goes by Patrick Anderson in real life. His map showed a long, 20,000 mile route extending from Pakistan through the southern tips of Africa and South America and finally ending in an epic trans-Pacific journey to Siberia. On a traditional 2D map, the path looks nothing like a straight line; but remember, the Earth is a sphere.​

:AMR:

AMR