North - South

[cikljamas]

02.03.2013. this guy started the thread with this question:


Will compass work in Southern Hemisphere?

My wife and I will be going to Patagonia next week for ten days. From there we go to Antarctica for three weeks. Will be doing some hiking but just day stuff. Here is a question for all of you as I can't seem to find a straight answer on the Internet - does a compass work in the southern hemisphere? Will the magnetic needle still point north? This is not a huge issue for me but just wondering. Thanks for your help!

03.25.2013. after he had come back he wrote this:

I just got back from my five week Patagonia/Antarctica trip last week. Just before leaving for the Antarctica segment of the trip, I did an experiment in the city of Ushuaia which is located on the southern tip of South America. It's latitude 54°48′south. I visited a local park that had a large decorative compass made out of stone. I used it to get my north, south, east, west bearings. Side by side I set up a North American compass, a global compass, and an iPhone compass. All three pointed in the exact same direction - north (see photo below). I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..." As I mentioned in my previous post, this was not a huge issue for me but it was fun finding out the answer.

Here is the picture of his compasses:



How do you comment that?

I would just like to add this:

Let C, fig. 87, represent a dipping needle on the "equator"

of a globe. A mere inspection of the diagram is sufficient to make it demonstrated that the needle C cannot be horizontal, and at the same time pointing towards the north pole N. If a ship sailed east or west on the equator where the compass is horizontal, it is evident that its north or south end would describe a circle in the heavens equal in magnitude to the circumference of the earth at the equator--as shown by D, E, F.



fig. 87

My point is that there is no south pole whatsoever!

[cikljamas]

I found this very interesting:

The great traveller Humboldt says:--

"We saw distinctly, for the first time, the cross of the south, on the nights of the 4th and 5th of July, in the 16th degree of latitude. It was strongly inclined, and appeared from time to time between the clouds. . . . The pleasure felt on discovering the Southern Cross was warmly shared in by such of the crew as had lived in the colonies."

If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator. More especially ought it to be at all times visible when the nearest star belonging to it is considerably nearer to the so-called "pole star of the south" than is the nearest of the stars in the "Great Bear" to the pole star of the north. Humboldt did not see the Southern Cross until he

p. 288

was in the 16th latitude south, and then it was "strongly inclined," showing that it was rising in the east, and sharing in the general sweep of the stars from east to west, in common with the whole firmament of stars moving round the pole star of the northern region.

We have seen that wherever the motions of the stars are carefully examined, it is found that all are connected, and move in relation to the northern centre of the earth. There is nowhere to be found a "break" in the general connection. Except, indeed, what is called the "proper motion" of certain stars and groups of stars all move in the same general direction, concentric with the north pole, and with velocities increasing with radial distance from it. To remove every possible doubt respecting the motions of the stars from the central north to the most extreme south, a number of special observers, each completely free from the bias of education respecting the supposed rotundity of the earth, might be placed in various southern localities, to observe and record the motions of the well known southern constellation, not in relation to a supposed south pole star, but to the meridian and latitude of each position. This would satisfy a certain number of those who cannot divest themselves of the idea of rotundity, but is not at all necessary for the satisfaction of those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative.

The points of certainty are the following:--

1st.--Wherever the experiment is made the stars in the zenith do not rise, culminate, and set in the same straight

p. 289

line, or plane of latitude, as they would if the earth is a globe.

2nd.--The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

3rd.--The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations;

p. 290

all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.



How about this:

[cikljamas]

I would like to remind us all to several previously posted facts in one not so appropriate thread (E mc2) for this (proving that the surface of the earth is flat) purpose...

http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html

Full Moon and Sun - same side of Earth:
http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/8hcbtpe7jebm9c03w546.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/x24sgeg76osfczxxwwwu.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/1f4qesfxbjh3orxv7f5q.jpg
http://zaslike.com/files/brhj1egosnhyahmnb6dg.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg

Full Moon and Sun - positioned 90 degrees to each other:
http://www.zaslike.com/files/yqx06cocmi5chdtczt.jpg

http://www.energeticforum.com/254038-post265.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/254089-post269.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/254058-post267.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/253978-post260.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/253284-post137.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/253578-post196.html

[cikljamas]

Let me remind us how it all began:

The belief that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" and orbiting the sun is THE GRANDADDY OF ALL DECEPTIONS IN THE WORLD TODAY...

Launched from its modern founder's deathbed in 1543, the Copernican Revolution ushered in a movement that has totally reshaped and re-directed ALL of man's knowledge (See Below Article: Exposing The Copernican Deception: The Cataclysmic Impact On Every Field Of Modern Man’s Knowledge)

The Christian Bible (and the Koran!) declare the earth to be motionless. The mathematical Copernican model says the earth rotates on an "axis" (at over 1000 MPH) orbits the sun (at 30 times rifle bullet speed), and is whooshing around a galaxy (at 250 times rifle bullet speed) .....all at the same time.

Over the centuries, superstars in the physical sciences established the Copernican model as an unchallenged fact. This success paved the way for conquest of the biological sciences (Darwin et al). This transvaluation of values and philosophy (Nietzsche et al) then quickly spread to the social and behavioral sciences (Marx, Freud et al), to mathematics (Einstein et al), the Arts (Picasso et al), Education (Dewey et al), and so on through today's media reinforcement of all of the above. ..As the 21st Century gets its feet wet, man's "knowledge" is almost totally secularized and the Bible all but ignored as the source of absolute Truth from God Himself. ..The "sciences" reign supreme, and they do so because of the victory of Copernicanism over the Bible's motionless earth.

In his preface to the creationist textbook Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, John N. Moore says that “true science” requires that the data “simply be presented as it is,” and that “a philosophic viewpoint regarding origins” cannot be science.9

One prominent geocentrist, astronomer and computer scientist James N. Hanson, shows more candor. In a public lecture, he said of non-geocentric astronomers, “They lie a lot.”11 Charles K. Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society, is absolutely vehement about scientific dishonesty. He regularly calls scientists “liars” and “demented dope fiends” and claims that the entire space program is a “carnie game.”12

Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”13

Since flat-earthism is the paradigm of Bible-Science, it should be discussed first. It’s difficult to see how the scientific creationists, some of whom claim to discern the laws of thermodynamics in the Bible, can fail to see its flat-earth implications.

While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.26



EARTH IS STATIONARY ! ! !

"Are there any Earth-is-stationary proofs?", you might be asking.

Yes! -There are quite a few undeniable proofs that the Earth is stationary - that it does not rotate about its axis daily.

Why is that important?

“The most important element in heliocentric model is the Earth’s rotation about its polar axis”, says Dr. Shaban in his book, The Verses of Deus (page 77). The reason for that is obvious: If the Earth does not rotate 360 degrees in 24 hours, but if it does revolve around the sun, then one side would always be in daylight, while the other half would experience continual night. It would be similar to what we see of the moon, as it revolves around Earth.

1) If the Earth rotated about its polar axis, it would have to be moving fastest at the equator and slower at each mile closer to the north and south poles. Theoretically, the tiny point at each pole would not be moving at all. (We will explain this proof below, after listing a few additional points.)

2) As Dr. Shaban says, “The rotation of the air-layer next to the rigid Earth is without cause . . . [and] is the greatest hoax ever invented by mankind.” (Quoted from The Verses of Deus, page 77.) That is, there is no cause for the air atmosphere near the Earth to rotate with the Earth. If the Earth was rotating fast enough to complete 360 degrees every 24 hours, the atmosphere would long ago have been hurtled away. (And see point 3.)

3) Similar to points 1 and 2, IF the atmosphere was rotating along with the Earth, it would have to be moving faster at the equator than at any other northern or southern degree of latitude (= distance from the equator). But in fact, the atmosphere does not move – it has the same force (atmospheric pressure) except for relatively small, and predictable, variations based on altitude and temperature.

4) If the Earth was rotating as we are told (i.e., from west to east in direction), an airplane would have to travel much faster to fly from Los Angeles to Miami than from Miami to Los Angeles. And the required speed to fly west-to-east at cities close to the equator would be much greater than speed needed to go from, say, Toronto to Moscow (since the Earth’s speed of rotation closer to the North Pole would be less than farther to the south).

The atmosphere at sea level thus exerts more pressure than it does at higher altitudes. By definition, the atmospheric pressure at sea level is called one atmosphere (atm) and is 760 millimeters of mercury (760mmHg) – which is the same as 29.92 inches of mercury (in a barometer). That is an average of 14.7 pounds per square inch of downward pressure because of the weight of the air above. (In weather forecasting, actual barometric pressure is commonly given in millibars, a metric unit. One atm is equal to 1013.5 millibars.)

Those are facts. Other facts include what happens to a gaseous mixture, such as air, or the atmosphere, when it is away from the center of a rotating system. Dr. Shaban points out that:

“The rotational velocity of the air atmosphere, V, is given by: V=2πr/T Where r is equal to R + h, R is the radius of the rigid Earth, h is the altitude height (from the surface) and T is equal to 24 hours. In any rotational system, the larger is the radius r, the greater is the angular velocity V, the greater is the angular momentum (m V r), and the greater is the amount of inertia (m times r-squared), where m is the mass.” (pages 74 and 75)

He goes on to point out that 2π/T is a constant when Earth rotation is considered, since T = 24 hours.

Thus, “Each atmosphere layer should have a different angular velocity; the angular velocity becomes greater at higher altitude . . .”. He reminds us that the “rotational velocity at the surface of rigid Earth is 1670 km/hr.” But if one goes to an altitude of 500 km (which is getting toward the limit of the atmosphere and the boundary with space – but is not quite that far up), the “rotational velocity at this height is 1800 km/hr (500 m/s), which is the same as the peripheral speed of gas centrifuge.” (pages 77 and 78)

In other words, to be traveling along with the Earth as it rotates around its axis (if it did!), atmosphere at 500 kilometers would be moving at 500 meters per second (about 1,118 mph). Near sea level, the atmosphere would be traveling at 1670 km/hr, or about 1,037 mph. That is about 81 mph greater. So at 500 km (about 311 miles above sea level) the pressure of the atmosphere (gas) would be greater than at sea level. –It has to be, for, as Dr. Shaban points out, the principle of the centrifuge and the centrifugal pump is the same as would be for a rotating Earth: The greatest pressure is at the farthest point from the center of the rotating body or part.

Since we know that actual atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude instead, the Earth cannot be rotating and have the atmosphere we know.

Finally, for this page, the gaseous atmosphere, if rotating with the earth, would exhibit properties for which the centrifuge is made: Heavier elements and molecules would be driven outward. That means there would be relatively more oxygen than hydrogen at high altitudes, and more hydrogen than oxygen (by percentages) near sea level. That is because oxygen is heavier than hydrogen. And the result does not agree with reality (that says the percentage of oxygen stays the same with altitude - just the amount decreases). And that would mean that life as we know it on earth would not have survived.

But life has survived. So the Earth-is-stationary point is proven! The Earth does not rotate on its polar axis. This stands proven and absolutely destroys the possibility that heliocentricity could be true. -Because if the earth is stationary (in terms of having no rotation) but it did revolve around the sun, one side of the earth would be very hot and the other constantly frozen from lack of sunlight.

The earth is not rotating - spinning.

[cikljamas]

You have to see this, especially pay attention at what has been said in 13th minute of this video (about the true reasons of organizing Second Council of Vatican): Mic'd Up "The Principle: Is Earth Really the Center of the Universe?"

The Pope then recalled how they saw "that the relationship between the Church and the modern period was one of some ‘contrasts’ from the outset, starting with the error in the Galileo case, "and the idea was to correct this wrong start "and to find a new relationship between the Church and the best forces in the world, "to open up the future of humanity, to open up to real progress."

Now, what Ratzinger really meant by mentioning "THE ERROR IN THE GALILEO CASE"???

[Hrothgar]

wow, I have to say that is twisted

If the earths rotation is 24hours and the earth trip around the sun takes 1day then yes it would always have only on side facing the sun but it takes 365.25 days so that isn't an issue.

The atmosphere isn't an object. If it were a single object then yes it would try to fly off. HOWEVER! being a mass of unconnected gas it acts as a lubricant deflecting each accelerative impact. according to the "logic" presented oceans should be in the sky as they are denser than air. Gravity out pulls the centrifugal forces at that point.

Hot air rises cold air drops due to differences in density Hydrogen fly's skyward at about 15mph from that density difference.

I know the earth spins due to one simple test. Pull the plug on your drain and watch which direction the water swirls. If your in the north it will drain counter clockwise, in the south clockwise.

As far as the universe having warm and cold areas have you ever considered the expansion of the universe is in the shape of a toroid not a sphere. From our perspective we wouldn't be able to perceive it but it would be like a concussive ring born of a bullets passing. Finding one loose thread doesn't unravel a tapestry.

I have only found one religion that makes any sense and here is the entirety of its doctrine:

1 God is great
2 Beer is good
3 People are crazy

That's it.

[cikljamas]

If the earths rotation is 24hours and the earth trip around the sun takes 1day then yes it would always have only on side facing the sun but it takes 365.25 days so that isn't an issue.

The atmosphere isn't an object. If it were a single object then yes it would try to fly off. HOWEVER! being a mass of unconnected gas it acts as a lubricant deflecting each accelerative impact. according to the "logic" presented oceans should be in the sky as they are denser than air. Gravity out pulls the centrifugal forces at that point.

Hot air rises cold air drops due to differences in density Hydrogen fly's skyward at about 15mph from that density difference.

I know the earth spins due to one simple test. Pull the plug on your drain and watch which direction the water swirls. If your in the north it will drain counter clockwise, in the south clockwise.

As far as the universe having warm and cold areas have you ever considered the expansion of the universe is in the shape of a toroid not a sphere. From our perspective we wouldn't be able to perceive it but it would be like a concussive ring born of a bullets passing. Finding one loose thread doesn't unravel a tapestry.

I have only found one religion that makes any sense and here is the entirety of its doctrine:

1 God is great
2 Beer is good
3 People are crazy

That's it.

What is the point of your first sentence? There is no point in your sentence, but your pointless sentence reminds me to one question that has a great point: in geocentric universe everything is spinning around Earth, how can it be?

Answer: It can't be without great modifications of the geometry, and relations (distances) between celestial objects (and their sizes) in the universe as we generally perceive it on the basis of current fraudulent scientific dogma!!! That is why geocentrists are much lousier guys than heliocentists! Geocentrism without Flat Earth Hypothesis is just a disastrously preposterous idea, ultimate stupidity! Listen this excellent question, and then excellently stupid answer: Mic'd Up "The Principle: Is Earth Really the Center of the Universe?" - YouTube

Regarding your simple test of watching which direction the water swirls i just have to say this:

Did i say:

I advise you to make these few tests for the beginning:

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 1

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 2

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 4

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 5

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 6

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 7

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 9

Do you feel any wiser now?

1 God is great
2 Beer is good
3 People are crazy

That's it.

Just couldn't agree more!!!

[Hrothgar]

sorry didn't read to closely

So where are the edges located and what is at the bottom on the other side?

[cikljamas]

So where are the edges located and what is at the bottom on the other side?

The edges are located in "the south" and "the south" is not the south in ordinary meaning of that word. The south means farther (southerner) from North Pole which is in the central position of the Earth.

Regarding another part of your question we should first reconsider something else:

One atheistic view:

Despite the obvious sincerity of those who so view the Bible, the inerrancy doctrine has no basis in fact. That the Bible contains mistakes in every area mentioned by Mr. Till is a truth widely recognized by reputable Bible scholars. One of the most consistent scientific errors that Bible writers made concerned their misconception of the earth's shape. In Psalm 24:2, for example, it was said that "the world and all that is in it belong to the Lord; the earth and all who live on it are his. He built it on the deep waters beneath the earth and laid its foundations in the ocean depths," (GNB).

Now, let see if it is really true that the inerrancy doctrine of the Bible has no basis in fact...

IT has been shown that the doctrine of the earth's rotundity is simply a plausible theory, having no practical foundation; all ideas, therefore, of "centre of attraction of gravitation," "mutual mass attraction of earth and moon," &c. &c., as taught in the Newtonian hypothesis must be given up, and the cause of tides in the ocean sought in some other direction. Before commencing such an inquiry, however, it will be useful to point out a few of the difficulties which render the theory contradictory, and therefore false and worthless...

...In both the above experiments it will be seen that the water will be drawn away from the sides representing the shores when it is elevated in the centre. Hence the supposed attraction of the moon upon the waters of the earth could not possibly cause a flood-tide on the shores which are nearest her meridian action, but the very contrary; the waters would recede from the land to supply the pyramid of water formed immediately underneath the moon, and of necessity produce an ebb tide instead of the flood, which the Newtonian theory affirms to be the result.

The above and other difficulties which exist in connection with the explanation of the tides afforded by the Newtonian system, have led many, including Sir Isaac Newton himself, to admit that such explanation is the least satisfactory portion of the "theory of gravitation."... You have to read this through - The cause of tides

Then you have to read this:

Location

The exact depth of the waters known as the great deep within the Earth's crust varies with different models. The Hydroplate theory places the water below a 10-mile thick crust, the remnants of which are now the continental crust. This theory is the first flood model to deal with the springs of the great deep. Modeling the springs of the deep is an important aspect of any Flood model and one where hydroplate theory excels. It is an important aspect of flood geology but one that still requires much work.

Location map showing the boundary of the High Plains (Ogallala) aquifer, major cities and roads, and altitude of land surface.

Large underground aquifers exist today that may represent remnants of the waters that burst forth during the global flood. One of the largest known aquifers is known as the High Plains Aquifer (Ogallala aquifer). The Ogallala is an ancient, non-replenishing body of water that supplies nearly one-third of the water used for irrigation in the US. The aquifer lies beneath 8 states in the U.S. and occupies some 175,000 square miles. More than 5 trillion gallons of water are pumped from the aquifer each year.

There seems to be water beneath the Tibetan Plateau. According to a 2001 Science report, a layer of aqueous fluids could produce the conductance observed in Tibet with a lower fluid fraction and/or layer thickness than considered above for partial melt. For example, a layer only 1.6 km thick containing 10% of 100 S/m brine would be needed to yield the observed 10,000-S conductance.[6]


The idea of there being vast amount of water in the earth’s mantle is a well documented theory and is actually required for the old earth model. Water is believed to transport materials and is responsible for some seismic properties.[7] In fact, if it is assumed that there is no water below the crust, much water would be missing. The old earth model for the earth’s formation requires much more water then what is seen at the surface.[8]

There are a number of evidential grounds that lend credibility for creationist predictions, others are actual observations of water currently in the mantle.

In 1997 scientists discovered that the zone between the upper and lower mantle is actually wet and may contain about 10-30 times the amount of water currently in all of our oceans combined. Experimental work was followed and what was discovered is that 70% of what comes out of volcanoes is water. Additionally, certain minerals can hold water in even the worst temperatures.

Scientists have also discovered a blob in the earth's mantle. It is located more than 500 miles under the western Caribbean Sea and is about 80 miles thick by 380 miles tall. This is most likely lava, but this may be a left over of a spring that ruptured during the Flood. This fits nicely with hydroplate theory.[9]

According to a recent model, there is a strange anomaly in the pacific. It appears to be an enormously huge section of hydrate minerals. Though this is a far cry from a fountain of the deep, it fits nicely into the idea. This could very well be the left over of a fountain.[10]

Motohiko Murakami, of the Tokyo Institute of Technology in Japan, found that there may be five times the amount of water in the mantle then all the earth’s oceans. He found the water about 1,000 kilometres below the Earth's surface at temperatures of 1,000o C. He also did calculations on the capability of water to be held under such pressures.
“ The lower mantle's minerals can retain about a tenth as much water as the rocks above, Murakami's team finds. But because the volume of the lower mantle is much greater than that of the transition zone, it could hold a comparable amount of water.[11] ”

National Geographic magazine quotes him as saying,
“ Our results suggest that the lower mantle can potentially store considerable amounts of water.[12] ”

One phenomenon that has eluded scientist for some matter of years is unexplained earth quakes in the deep mantle. Theoretically, water in the deep parts of the earth could explain this. Water being squeezed out of it’s source could cause underground earth quakes and can potentially cause plate movement.[13]

There is also the Beijing Anomaly. It is an anomaly in seismic waves, which hint (at a 700-1400 km depth) at a large amount of water in the mantle.[14] More recently, researchers found that there is a reservoir as large as the Arctic ocean in the mantle.[15]

There has also been testing and research done on the upper mantle of the earth. A mineral called wadsleyite, holds about 3% water by weight. And the estimated amount of wadsleyite that exists, the water contained in it works out to be about 30 of our oceans. 30 oceans worth of water is more than enough to flood the earth to the highest mountain.[16]




Genesis 7:18
And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.


Genesis 7:20
7:20 mountains. The words “high hills” and “mountains” are the same in the original Hebrew. The waters were 15 cubits (22.5 feet) above the highest mountains, patently including Mount Ararat, which is now 17,000 feet high. In the “local-flood” theory, Mt. Ararat would have had the same elevation before and after the Flood, but it should be obvious that a 17,000-foot flood is not a local flood!

ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat?

[Hrothgar]

nuff said


did I say

So in summary it's not a Dyson sphere, its a Jesus sphere.

[cikljamas]

You must be confused by the position of God on above schematic, aren't you?

Well, you should be just a little bit subtler, but let me help you not to die of so much laughing, this is the key for understanding God's position in above schematic:

Paul Before the Areopagus
…26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation. 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

If there is anything else that you would like to ask about, but you are too timid to step up and pose the question, feel free to ask what ever you want, just don't be so shy. And i warn you: to much laughing could be deadly dangerous...

Regarding great flood you have to chose between these options:

1. It didn't happen at all
2. It happened but it was local event
3. It happened and it was global event

You can not prove the trueness of any of the first two options, but i can prove to you that the third option is true.

Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.

Is there evidence that the flood was global?

I will quote here just the first one evidence (out of six):

1. Fast moving water can erode away dirt, sand and even rock. When the water slows down, the dirt, sand and rock are dropped. This sediment may contain minerals that can be weathered away quickly. In the San Francisco area of California, beds of sediments hundreds of feet thick contain minerals that would have been destroyed if not buried quickly. Such beds can be seen in many other areas world-wide. These sediments could not have been laid down slowly over thousands of years otherwise the minerals would have been destroyed by weathering. Such beds tell us that a great quantity of water was involved and the sediment was deposited and buried quickly.

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Now that you see that there is plenty of evidence for Global Great Flood you have to ask yourself if such a global event could be possible on the rotund Earth (Globe), especially rotund and spinning Globe?

It is obvious at the first glance that the answer to that question is: NO, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE!

Underlying the flood story in Genesis 6-9 is the ancient Israelite view of the cosmos as made up of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water.[14] Below the earth were the "waters of chaos", the cosmic sea;[15] the waters were also above the earth, and so the solid bowl of the raqia (firmament) was necessary to keep them from flooding the world.[16]

You see: if there was a Global Great Flood, Earth surface has to be Flat!!!

But that is just one among innumerable proofs of Earth's Flatness and Motionless!!!

If that is still funny to you feel free to laugh, just remember: you were warned about related health issues!

[ethan]

What do you expect to happen if you travel in the same direction? Fall off the edge?

You think the moon, sun, planets are all plates?

Throw a handful of water into the air...When gravity pulls it back down...it turns into spheres.

viola' earth is round.

Planets form into spheres while in their molten state while being pulled in by the suns gravity.

Why do bible followers lack logic? Seems like that's a requirement to have "faith".

[Bob Smith]

I was recently put onto the work of Dr. Robert Sungenis around geocentrism - mindblowing stuff, quoting a lot of scientific findings to support his position. Here's a great interview with him:
Dr Robert Sungenis - Geocentrism Geocentric Cosmology - YouTube
In short, he maintains that the earth is at the center of mass of our universe, and the universe rotates around the earth, analogous to the way a thrown tennis racket rotates around its center of mass.
I hope I'm not quoting something already cited in this thread.
Bob

[cikljamas]

What do you expect to happen if you travel in the same direction? Fall off the edge?

You think the moon, sun, planets are all plates?

Throw a handful of water into the air...When gravity pulls it back down...it turns into spheres.

viola' earth is round.

Planets form into spheres while in their molten state while being pulled in by the suns gravity.

Why do bible followers lack logic? Seems like that's a requirement to have "faith".

Voila:

An argument for the earth's rotundity is thought, by many, to be found in the following facts:

"Fluid or semi-fluid substances in a state of motion invariably assume the globular form, as instanced in rain, hail, dew, mercury, and melted lead, which, poured from a great height, as in the manufacture of small shot, becomes divided into spherical masses."

"There is abundant evidence, from geology, that the earth has been a fluid or semi-fluid mass, and it could not, therefore, continue in a state of motion through space without becoming spherical."

In the first place, in reply to the above, it is denied that hail is always globular. On examination immediately after or during a hail-storm, the masses present every variety of form, and very few are found perfectly globular. Rain and dew cannot so well be examined during their fall, but when standing on hard surfaces in minute quantities, they generally appear spherical, a result simply of "attraction of cohesion." The same of mercury; and in reference to the formation of shot, by pouring melted lead from the top of a very high tower into cold water, it is a mistake to suppose that all, or even a large proportion, is converted into truly spherical masses. From twenty to fifty per cent. of the masses formed are very irregular in shape, and have to be returned to the crucible for re-melting. In addition to which it may be remarked, that the tendency in falling fluids to become globular is owing to what, in chemical works, is called "attraction of cohesion" (not "attraction of gravitation "), which is verylimited in its operation.

Its action is confined to small quantities of matter. If, in the manufacture of shot, the melted metal is allowed to fall in masses of several ounces or pounds, instead of being divided (by pouring through a sieve or "cullender" with small holes) into particles weighing only a few grains, it will never take a spherical form. Shot of an inch diameter could not be made by this process; bullets of even half an inch can only be made by casting the metal into spherical moulds. In tropical countries the rain, instead of falling in drops, or small globules, often comes down in large irregular masses or gushes, which have no approximation whatever to sphericity. So that it is manifestly unjust to affirm, of large masses like the earth, that which attaches only to minute portions, or a few grains, of matter.

Without denying that the earth has been, at some former period, or was, when it first existed, in a pulpy or semi-fluid state, it is requisite to prove beyond all doubt that it has a motion through space, or the conclusion that it is therefore spherical is premature, and very illogical. It should also be proved that it has motion upon axes, or it is equally contrary to every principle of reasoning to affirm that the equatorial is greater than the polar diameter, as the inevitable result of the centrifugal force produced by its axial or diurnal rotation. The assumption of such conditions by Sir Isaac Newton, as we have seen when speaking of the measurement of arcs of the meridian, was contrary to evidence, and led to and maintains a "muddle of mathematics" such as philosophers will, sooner or later, be ashamed of. The whole matter, taken together, entirely fails as an argument for the earth's rotundity. It has been demonstrated that axial and orbital motion do not exist, and, therefore, any argument founded upon and including them as facts is necessarily fallacious.

I was recently put onto the work of Dr. Robert Sungenis around geocentrism - mindblowing stuff, quoting a lot of scientific findings to support his position. Here's a great interview with him:
Dr Robert Sungenis - Geocentrism Geocentric Cosmology - YouTube
In short, he maintains that the earth is at the center of mass of our universe, and the universe rotates around the earth, analogous to the way a thrown tennis racket rotates around its center of mass.
I hope I'm not quoting something already cited in this thread.
Bob

See post #7!!!

[aljhoa]

Fat Erf Poof



This contrail is no more vertical than the road is, and nor are the power lines at 45 degrees.
Everything is horizontal – it’s the just the angle you are viewing it from. All of these show horizontal contrails.
A Problem of Perspective - New Year's Eve Contrail - Contrail Science » Contrail Science

Round earth theory debunked in less than 2 minutes - YouTube

Al