Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Tradman on January 18, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
-
An anomaly of multiple full moons doesn't appear to have happened ever, that I can find. We had three full moons, three nights in a row in Dec 2021. This month we will have two full moons, last night and another one tonight. I wonder how the globers will scientifically explain this exceptional phenomenon. This is easily explained in the flat earth because any change in the smaller celestial lights above a flat earth will largely not affect things on earth. However, with shadows and lack thereof dependent on earth and sun and moon lining up exactly for 3 days in a row is simply impossible in the globe model unless the earth stopped spinning and lost it's curve.
-
The sun has been looking pretty wierd lately. I could look directly at it, it was like a blanc disc similar to the apparition at Fatima
-
The sun has been looking pretty wierd lately. I could look directly at it, it was like a blanc disc similar to the apparition at Fatima
That's weird. Reminds me of the prophecy that there will be changes in the sun, moon and stars.
-
That's weird. Reminds me of the prophecy that there will be changes in the sun, moon and stars.
Yes, the Bible talks about it ,it said " after the fulfillment of gentiles" don't know how that fits into catholic teaching though
-
I was just looking directly at the sun today. Round white disc.
-
I was just looking directly at the sun today. Round white disc.
That is how they described it at Fatima before it stated to spin
-
An anomaly of multiple full moons doesn't appear to have happened ever, that I can find. We had three full moons, three nights in a row in Dec 2021. This month we will have two full moons, last night and another one tonight. I wonder how the globers will scientifically explain this exceptional phenomenon. This is easily explained in the flat earth because any change in the smaller celestial lights above a flat earth will largely not affect things on earth. However, with shadows and lack thereof dependent on earth and sun and moon lining up exactly for 3 days in a row is simply impossible in the globe model unless the earth stopped spinning and lost it's curve.
So the moon was actually a hundred percent full several days in a row each of the last two months? That's interesting (and potentially scary) whether you're a globe earther or a flat earther. Do you have a link I could look at about this phenomenon? I suppose a glober might explain it by some earth wobble of some kind, but the odds of that happening to keep up with the earth's alleged rotation would be infinitesimally small.
-
Is this 3 full moon thing something you personally noticed and are bringing up? This is really easily explained on RE and happens like this probably every month if so...
https://www.quora.com/I-have-seen-a-full-moon-three-nights-in-a-row-Does-this-mean-anything
There are a lot of people that ask this same question and it boils down to the fact that the moon is just full enough on the day before and after the real full moon that people don't notice it actually isn't completely full on those days.
(https://i.imgur.com/UgH881s.jpg)
Here is a good example of how it looks the day before and after. Pretty nearly full, but with a barely noticeable shadow (especially the day before the full moon for this image). Is this what you saw? I have been unable to find any widespread notation of 3 full moons happening for December 2021 specifically otherwise...
-
An anomaly of multiple full moons doesn't appear to have happened ever, that I can find. We had three full moons, three nights in a row in Dec 2021. This month we will have two full moons, last night and another one tonight. I wonder how the globers will scientifically explain this exceptional phenomenon. This is easily explained in the flat earth because any change in the smaller celestial lights above a flat earth will largely not affect things on earth. However, with shadows and lack thereof dependent on earth and sun and moon lining up exactly for 3 days in a row is simply impossible in the globe model unless the earth stopped spinning and lost it's curve.
The moon can look nearly full when it's only a tiny bit off full. I suspect that's what you saw. Here's a lunar calendar (https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/) you can check.
-
So the moon was actually a hundred percent full several days in a row each of the last two months? That's interesting (and potentially scary) whether you're a globe earther or a flat earther. Do you have a link I could look at about this phenomenon? I suppose a glober might explain it by some earth wobble of some kind, but the odds of that happening to keep up with the earth's alleged rotation would be infinitesimally small.
This is the best I could do for last month's 3 FULL moons, but it doesn't explain anything of course because earth is a spinning globe to these people. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/2111/full-moon-guide-december-2021-january-2022/
-
The moon can look nearly full when it's only a tiny bit off full. I suspect that's what you saw. Here's a lunar calendar (https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/) you can check.
That may be the case, but with last month's full moons, 3 were full and the fourth day was so close to full, it was as you describe. I watched 3 out of the 4 days because we had clouds one day and the two I saw were full. The fourth day I saw it was very close to full, but not.
-
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/2111/full-moon-guide-december-2021-january-2022/
The link didn't seem to work. Here it is again.
-
Here is a link for visual confirmation.
https://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/2021/december
-
Looking around I find that there is no fanfare, no point and stare at these amazing events, nothing. In fact, some sites admit there are extra full moons while others say officially only 1 full, the rest, waxing or waning. The ones I provided above suggest there were 2 full moons, with another one at 99% and another at 98%. Who knows what is true with these liars? In the meantime, even 2 full moons in a row, with two more, one at 98% and 99% full is something to pay attention to. This is not normal even if they want to pretend it's nothing.
-
Then there is the global moon, which is also associated with the Virgin Mary, reflecting as it does the light of the sun, just as Mary reflects the light of her Son who is in Heaven.
On this account He made the luminaries of heaven, the sun and the moon so that in dividing the day and the night, they might symbolise the Sun of Justice, Christ, and His holy mother, who is beautiful as the moon (Cant: 6, 9) for these two divide the day of grace and the night of sin. (Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God.)
St Basil, in his Hexaemeron, explains why God created light before the sun:
‘However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”’ (Hm. VI:2)
Besides the day, night and seasons, there are smaller, if not any less spectacular signs in the heavens for us to wonder at. First there are the eclipses of the sun. This comes about because although the sun and moon are at different distances from the Earth, God gave them the same size as viewed from the Earth. This is why there occurs a total eclipse as seen from certain parts of the Earth, when the moon covers the sun, both having the same circuмference.Such is the wonder of a total eclipse that the prospects of seeing one can attract people from all over the Earth to witness the marvel with their own eyes. For some time after the event, the newspapers, TV and journals are filled with reports of it, a demonstration that no other spectacle on Earth or in the sky can match. Often, they tell of a ‘spiritual’ dimension to this awesome coordination of cosmic bodies, leaving men, women and children drained with emotion.
An eclipse of the Earth’s moon, while less spectacular than a solar eclipse, is nevertheless another wondrous ‘sign.’ A lunar eclipse happens when the sun passes behind the Earth causing the shadow of the Earth to cover the moon. Now whereas a solar eclipse lasts only minutes, the maximum duration of a lunar eclipse is 2 hours for passing through the umbra, and 4 hours through both the umbra and the penumbra. What occurs is not the appearance of a blackening like a solar eclipse, but a variable and unpredictable change of colours, from bright light to a coppery or blood-red colour, occasionally even a bright orange yellow to dull red, depending on the atmospheric conditions.
‘No words or photograph can really convey the breath-taking beauty and ‘atmosphere’ of this moment which seems to affect the whole of nature, and it is indeed a pity that so few people have the opportunity of seeing a total eclipse of the Sun. It is something never to be missed.’
‘Words cannot convey the beauty of a total eclipse of the Moon, nor the impression produced by the sight of a dull red disc apparently bathed in the glow of some great celestial inferno, set in a sky filled with stars which the normal brilliance of the full moon would prevent our seeing.’--Larousse Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, Librairie Larousse, 1959, p.167
-
The moon can look nearly full when it's only a tiny bit off full. I suspect that's what you saw. Here's a lunar calendar (https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/) you can check.
I looked it up and did see on some mainstream space site that it was in fact full for 3 straight days, not just appearing to be full.
-
Then there is the global moon, which is also associated with the Virgin Mary, reflecting as it does the light of the sun, just as Mary reflects the light of her Son who is in Heaven.
While a pius metaphor, the moon does not reflect the sun's light.
-
While a pius metaphor, the moon does not reflect the sun's light.
What lights up the moon then Ladislaus?
-
‘There is no room for doubt that Astronomy was invented at the beginning of the World. As there is nothing more noteworthy than the regularity of movement among these great luminous bodies that turn unceasingly around the Earth, it is natural to think that one of the first interests of men was to consider their course and observe their periods. But mere curiosity alone was not solely responsible for leading men to set themselves astronomical speculations, for it can be maintained that necessity as well obliged them. For should one not observe the seasons that vary by the movement of the Sun, it would be impossible to make a success of agriculture; were one to fail to note the suitable times for travel, one could establish no Business; should one not have determined once and for all the length of the month and the year, there could be neither order established between civil affairs, nor could days be marked out for religious purposes: hence as agricultural farming, commerce, politics and even religion cannot do without astronomy, it is obvious that men must have been obliged to study this science right from the World’s beginning. Both sacred and secular history confirms this truth. What the Holy Scriptures reveals about the years that the ancient Patriarchs lived up to is proof positive that the first men studied the movements of the stars. For had they not taken account of the exact number of days that last in the varying phases of the Moon which serve to conceal the months; and of the number of months during which the Sun little by little approaches the Zenith and afterwards distances itself from it, marking the changes by increase and diminution of the days, which allow one to establish the length of the year, they could not have noted the number of years each Patriarch had lived, nor the times of their birth and death, as precisely as Moses records it in Genesis. And there certainly was need in this first age of the world to observe the stars with a great deal of care, for by the circuмstances of the history of the great flooding which are also reported in Genesis, one can see that the year from the time of the Deluge was regulated following the movements of the Sun and Moon: which supposes a boundless number of observations. It is yet to be understood how all the application imaginable by the first men studying the sky could have gained them so much knowledge of the movements of the stars, unless their lives were longer than ours. By the living of such long lives gained for them great advances in astronomy. Flavius Josephus (37-100AD) was of the opinion that so necessary was this science that one of the reasons why God granted the first men such a long-lasting life was to facilitate for them the knowledge of the movements of the stars.’--- J.D. Cassini, The Progress of Astronomy
‘While Tyco de Brahe was observing in Denmark, many famous astronomers gathered in Rome under the aegis of Pope Gregory XIII. They worked with great success at correcting the errors that had crept in insensibly in the [Julian] calendar by the precession of Equinoxes and through anticipation of new Moons. These errors later would have completely overturned the order established by the Councils for the celebrations of movable feasts had the calendar not been revised according to modern observations of the movements of the Sun and of the Moon compared with the old times. It was Aloysius Lilius (1510-1576) who invented the new form of the Gregorian year but after his death Christoph Clavius (1538–1612) perfected it, gave its explanation, and its defence.’--- J.D. Cassini, The Progress of Astronomy
-
What lights up the moon then Ladislaus?
We don't know. Best guess is that it's a plasma phenomenon excited by electrical currents in the atmosphere.
-
We don't know. Best guess is that it's a plasma phenomenon excited by electrical currents in the atmosphere.
Unlike modern scientists, we admit when we don't know something, rather than make up a theory to back-justify our previous theories.
You can see THROUGH the part of the moon that isn't lit up ... as noted by several professional astronomers (and FEs have produced videos). Professor Foster, in a video from the 1950s, said that he had undeniable evidence that the moon is made of plasma. I believe that electromagnetism (rather than mythical "gravity") is actually behind many phenomena. Tesla believed that eletricity was everywhere, that pressure from ether was responsible for "gravity", and that electro-magnetism could counteract the effects of gravity. He had a design for an anti-gravity flying machine. There are "electric universe" theories out there that seem to have a lot of support. We just don't know, and that's partly due to the fact that modern science has sent everyone on a wild goose chase due to a need to justify their various athestically-motivated theories.
Tesla famously remarked that science has used mathematical equations to build up a fantasy-land cosmology, a house of cards that merely assumes various unproven foundational principles. That's why we ended up, as Kaku famously stated, with a crisis in cosmology, where they're off by 10^38, and have had to make up things like "Dark Matter" to keep the whole thing afloat.
-
While a pius metaphor, the moon does not reflect the sun's light.
Yes, moonlight is substantially different than the light of the sun or stars. Scripture also indicates it.
For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light. The rising sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light. Isaiah 13:10
There's also everyday ways to tell sun and moonlight are different.
Moonlight is silvery, cold and putrefying. Sunlight is golden, warm and nutritional.
Colors, especially the color red, are washed out by moonlight and brightened with sunlight.
I tested the temps of sun and moon a few years ago during a California summer with an instant read thermometer and it hovered around 200 degrees for the sun and between 10 and 20 degrees for the moon. Even though surrounding atmospheric temps have some influence, it doesn't appear to be much relative to the given celestial body. It's interesting to see that things like cement run several degrees colder in direct moonlight, than a nearby section out of direct moonlight.
-
Unlike modern scientists, we admit when we don't know something, rather than make up a theory to back-justify our previous theories.
You can see THROUGH the part of the moon that isn't lit up ... as noted by several professional astronomers (and FEs have produced videos). Professor Foster, in a video from the 1950s, said that he had undeniable evidence that the moon is made of plasma. I believe that electromagnetism (rather than mythical "gravity") is actually behind many phenomena. Tesla believed that eletricity was everywhere, that pressure from ether was responsible for "gravity", and that electro-magnetism could counteract the effects of gravity. He had a design for an anti-gravity flying machine. There are "electric universe" theories out there that seem to have a lot of support. We just don't know, and that's partly due to the fact that modern science has sent everyone on a wild goose chase due to a need to justify their various athestically-motivated theories.
Tesla famously remarked that science has used mathematical equations to build up a fantasy-land cosmology, a house of cards that merely assumes various unproven foundational principles. That's why we ended up, as Kaku famously stated, with a crisis in cosmology, where they're off by 10^38, and have had to make up things like "Dark Matter" to keep the whole thing afloat.
I always understood the light of the sun was reflected by the moon. I presume its phases were brought about by the blockage of the sun's light by the Earth as the moon rotated around the Earth.
That said your opinion on electromagnetism (rather than mythical "gravity") is correct. You do know that Einstein decided to extend his theory of gravity by attempting to combine it with the maths of electromagnetism. He knew if he could produce the equations then he could claim the greatest breakthrough in the history of physics, the long sought ‘Theory of Everything.’
Einstein worked on his UFT theory throughout the 1920s. Even when he fell ill he would do his maths on the sheets of his bed, or get the second wife to do them. In 1928 a rumour hit the newspapers that he was on the verge of the complete theory and was immediately lauded by journalists etc. Finally, on Jan. 30th, 1929 he published his five-page thesis. As we could imagine, such was his reputation that everyone first believed the man had evidence for the laws of the universe. Einstein boasted that he had solved the problems involved in writing down field equations for his simplified field theory, the long sought-after theory of everything, trying to show a link between his theory of gravity and electromagnetism. On the day the third of a series of nine articles on the theory was published, the New York Times printed an English translation of the lot, as ‘an outstanding advance in science.’ Soon however, this ‘science’ was found to be so full of contradictions that even the Relativists could not obscure its nonsense and Einstein had to abandon it. Accordingly, a year later Einstein knew the game was up and withdrew the paper in humiliation. That was to be the last of his theories in the field of cosmology.
-
Unlike modern scientists, we admit when we don't know something, rather than make up a theory to back-justify our previous theories.
I believe that electromagnetism (rather than mythical "gravity") is actually behind many phenomena. There are "electric universe" theories out there that seem to have a lot of support. We just don't know, and that's partly due to the fact that modern science has sent everyone on a wild goose chase due to a need to justify their various athestically-motivated theories.
It would be one of the fundamental principles of Catholic theology that while we all have free will and believe whom or what we like, God never leaves us ignorant. Accordingly, I would like to record the work of one that I would consider was God’s astronomer, the greatest observer of his or any era, Giovanni Domenico Cassini, a man who can be said to be the last of the truly great Catholic geocentric cosmologists. Now while the name Cassini will ring a faint bell with astronomers, surveyors, a few historians and some NASA Saturn probe fans, the world at large will never have been told much about him. We must remember that even history belongs to the victors, and the Big Bang Earthmovers are no exception. That then, is why this genius is not a household name like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton or Einstein. No man, no matter how qualified, whose reputation and work challenges and falsifies that of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr establishment now ensconced in both Church and State will be allowed his proper place and say in history.
‘Day 1: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said: Be light made. And light was made. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
Today, we know that light is but a product of electromagnetism that exists in space. So, God, when creating natural ‘light’ on the first day, must have created universal electromagnetism that could generate light before creating the sun? Einstein, with his Newtonian/Keplerian cosmology failed to show any connection between electromagnetism and what Newton defined as universal gravity. But Domenico Cassini did.
-
Domenico Cassini's "And God said: Be light made. And light was made."
Such a connection between 'universal gravity' or (the movements of cosmic bodies in the universe) emerged when we learned that Cassinian ovals - the orbits Domenico Cassini found when measuring the sun and planets going around the earth, and the orbits of stars around the Earth according to stellar aberration, are also used for modelling electro-magnetic activity in the case of wires of equal current and direction or like-point charges.
This link can be demonstrated by spreading iron-filings over a 2 positive-pole magnetised surface. This will form directional charge patterns that constitute a whole series of Cassinian ovals. Thus Cassini proved cosmic movements are DIRECTLY related to electromagnetism. But because Cassini's findings were all related to God's astronomy and cosmology, they have been ignored for centuries.
In 1924 the scientist J. D. Main Smith’s book Chemistry & Atomic Structure was published. In it he made the following connection:
‘Electron orbits in free atoms are “one-eyed,” have a nucleus only at one focus of the orbit. Atoms however… are in another category, their electron orbits are “two-eyed,”… Obviously as such orbits have two foci of attracting nuclear charges, electrons cannot describe elliptic orbits nor yet circular orbits, both of which are characteristic of orbits with a single central force. Professor G. T. Morgan came to the conclusion some years ago that the closed curves, known to mathematicians as “ovals of Cassini,” which are “two-eyed,” might suffice to represent the orbits of shared electrons. The Cassinian system of curves is such that the product of the distances from the foci of a point on a curve is constant. Clerk Maxwell, in his Electricity and Magnetism, 1873, showed that the sections of equipotential surfaces about two equal charges were Cassinian ovals (diagram XX). It follows, therefore, that a Cassinian oval is an orbit of constant potential, and, consequently, a possible Bohr orbit for an electron.’ --- Chemistry & Atomic Structure, p.202.
Moreover, in the 20th century a RADIATION called the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) was discovered throughout the universe. Is this the electromagnetic ‘light’ of creation revealed in Genesis? Didn't Sungenis and his team find that this CMB showed the Earth at the centre of the Universe.
-
The sun has been looking pretty wierd lately. I could look directly at it, it was like a blanc disc similar to the apparition at Fatima
I've noticed this a bit lately too. Didn't really think much of it. Weird.
-
We don't know. Best guess is that it's a plasma phenomenon excited by electrical currents in the atmosphere.
Absurd! I love it!
The moon is not plasma. It is comprised of minerals. That said, your references to an electric universe are more spot on. There’s lots of evidence of plasma electric discharge on the moon’s rocky surface. The craters are too round and perfect for them to be “impact” craters. The “lava tubes” and “canals” also appear to be the results of rilling—an electrical phenomenon.
I’m very much enjoying the second guessing of the official narrative of 20th Century cosmology—even when I disagree with it.
And for the record, while I do think we’ve been on the moon, the official stories of our moon landings are, I believe, dubious.
-
Laramie, I’m curious...if we’ve been to the moon, then why the need for the govt to lie about the moon landings?
-
Flat or globe, plasma moon or stone, we sure as hell never went to the moon
https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4
Laramie, I’m curious...if we’ve been to the moon, then why the need for the govt to lie about the moon landings?
The only people who I've seen push the "we've been there but the gov't is lying" theory are those who believe in aliens or believe Buzz Aldrin's lies
-
Absurd! I love it!
The moon is not plasma. It is comprised of minerals. That said, your references to an electric universe are more spot on. There’s lots of evidence of plasma electric discharge on the moon’s rocky surface. The craters are too round and perfect for them to be “impact” craters. The “lava tubes” and “canals” also appear to be the results of rilling—an electrical phenomenon.
I’m very much enjoying the second guessing of the official narrative of 20th Century cosmology—even when I disagree with it.
And for the record, while I do think we’ve been on the moon, the official stories of our moon landings are, I believe, dubious.
We can't possibly know that the moon is not plasma. Nor can we be sure that it has a rocky surface. Yes, it is pock-marked, but who's to say that isn't a lens front and that plasma is contained within? It certainly isn't dark dirt-gray and dusty as Nasa pretends because we know for certain that it is very bright. We also know from scripture that the moon is a light, not a rock. As far as going to the moon, because it is local and small compared to the narrative, I believe it's possible scientists may have had "close encounters" with the moon. Actually landing on it, I seriously doubt, but certainly, even if they are unable to get right up to it, scientists may well have been close enough to do observations not afforded the rest of us lest they suffer paradigm collapse. All the lies themselves prove that the ones promoting the heliocentric model are not going to share any truth that would jeopardize their reason for lying.
-
Laramie, I’m curious...if we’ve been to the moon, then why the need for the govt to lie about the moon landings?
Why lie? Perhaps we weren't getting to the moon on time. Or perhaps things didn't go as smoothly as we'd hoped. That's my guess. But I do think we were there. That's my opinion for now in this life. If I die and discover otherwise, that's fine.
I think they just really wanted the "first moon landing" to go smoothly and as planned. So they likely faked some of it. Perhaps they used an edited version, in case things didn't go well. I do think Kubrick was involved. But after that---after the "space race to the moon" was won, I think they didn't fake it as much. I could be wrong. I don't think I am.
On the other hand, look at all the damned fαℓѕє fℓαgs we have throughout the 20th/21st centuries. We live under a blanket of lies and spells.
-
Flat or globe, plasma moon or stone, we sure as hell never went to the moon
https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4
The only people who I've seen push the "we've been there but the gov't is lying" theory are those who believe in aliens or believe Buzz Aldrin's lies
I guess you can add me to those two on your list. For now, anyway.
-
We can't possibly know that the moon is not plasma. Nor can we be sure that it has a rocky surface. Yes, it is pock-marked, but who's to say that isn't a lens front and that plasma is contained within? It certainly isn't dark dirt-gray and dusty as Nasa pretends because we know for certain that it is very bright. We also know from scripture that the moon is a light, not a rock. As far as going to the moon, because it is local and small compared to the narrative, I believe it's possible scientists may have had "close encounters" with the moon. Actually landing on it, I seriously doubt, but certainly, even if they are unable to get right up to it, scientists may well have been close enough to do observations not afforded the rest of us lest they suffer paradigm collapse. All the lies themselves prove that the ones promoting the heliocentric model are not going to share any truth that would jeopardize their reason for lying.
It's my understanding that a study of the moon's regolith is what's tipped off the elite that the sun has blasted the solar system with mini supernova in the past. A lot of the regolith's been turned to glass from this event. And it's alerted them to the notion that there will be a solar catastrophe soon, and in their minds it happens every 12,000 years.
I'd recommend Suspicious0bservers on YouTube. They follow this solar cycle we're going through. He also notes our weakening magnetosphere, solar forcing that affects our weather and quake activity, and other related tangents.
https://youtu.be/ihwoIlxHI3Q
(https://youtu.be/ihwoIlxHI3Q)
The elites KNOW that a big catastrophe that's solar-wide is on the verge of manifesting itself. A study of the moon's regolith helped them towards this conclusion.
-
With regard to the so-called "craters" on the moon, I find it rather odd that nearly all of them are almost perfect circles. I would think that a fair number of very irregularly-shaped objects would have struck the surface of the moon. Besides that, these are enormous craters and there are lots of them. We don't see enormous asteroids hitting the moon on a regular basis. And, no, I don't believe that the earth and moon are billions of years old.
But more than that, I find it utterly preposterous that the moon rotates exactly at the same rate as it revolves around the earth. What are the odds of that? They have to be synchronized to the second. Otherwise, even if it was a second or two off, over the course of years, decades, and centuries, the face of the moon would change. And then scientists allege the moon is getting slightly farther away each year. So I guess it also adjusts its speed of rotation to match.
Then there's the amazing coicidence that the sun is exactly 400x larger than the earth and, at the same time, exactly 400x farther away ... thus making eclipses possible. Of course, pay no attention that the distance between the earth and the sun can vary by about 4%, so why are there perfect eclipses year round.
Finally, what seals the deal for me is the non-movement of polaris. We are hurtling through space, allegedly, at nearly 2 million MPH, rotating, revolving, etc. If the earth's angle to polaris were to change even a little bit, just by a couple of degrees, then Polaris would have off center. Sure, they argue that Polaris is so far away that the angle doesn't change at all. But the entire solar system and the galaxy hurtle through space on such a flat plane that the angle between earth and Polaris never changes.
So you mean to tell me that with all this movement (as below), the angle of the earth's North Pole in relation to Polaris doesn't change regularly? Sorry, just not buying it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
Vortexes necessarily mean angle chages, depending on which side of the vortex you're flying around.
-
I guess you can add me to those two on your list. For now, anyway.
You believe in aliens?
-
Why lie? Perhaps we weren't getting to the moon on time. Or perhaps things didn't go as smoothly as we'd hoped. That's my guess. But I do think we were there. That's my opinion for now in this life. If I die and discover otherwise, that's fine.
I think they just really wanted the "first moon landing" to go smoothly and as planned. So they likely faked some of it. Perhaps they used an edited version, in case things didn't go well. I do think Kubrick was involved. But after that---after the "space race to the moon" was won, I think they didn't fake it as much. I could be wrong. I don't think I am.
On the other hand, look at all the damned fαℓѕє fℓαgs we have throughout the 20th/21st centuries. We live under a blanket of lies and spells.
Certainly it's preposterous that things always went so smoothly when their practicing on earth didn't even come close even within weeks of the actual launch. Perhaps there are some dead American "cosmonauts" outside our solar system now as they missed the moon entirely? :laugh1: There are stories of various Russians who are allegedl dead out there somewhere.
-
You believe in aliens?
I think aliens are "the fey." Basically, not quite demons, but might as well be demons. Avoid them.
http://forge-and-anvil.com/2020/09/20/aliens-are-fairies/
(http://forge-and-anvil.com/2020/09/20/aliens-are-fairies/)
http://jackmikkelson.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-curious-case-of-ufologist-dr-steven.html (http://jackmikkelson.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-curious-case-of-ufologist-dr-steven.html)
-
Ok but that’s not the common understanding of what an alien is. If I asked you about dinosaurs and you interiorly re-define them as “big alligators” or something, it just confuses the conversation.
-
Ok but that’s not the common understanding of what an alien is. If I asked you about dinosaurs and you interiorly re-define them as “big alligators” or something, it just confuses the conversation.
It clarifies terms.
-
With regard to the so-called "craters" on the moon, I find it rather odd that nearly all of them are almost perfect circles. I would think that a fair number of very irregularly-shaped objects would have struck the surface of the moon. Besides that, these are enormous craters and there are lots of them. We don't see enormous asteroids hitting the moon on a regular basis. And, no, I don't believe that the earth and moon are billions of years old.
It's still always an impact with an explosion when an asteroid hits the moon, that gives us a round crater as the energy is dissipated equally in all directions every time. I've explained this to you previously, yet you reurgitate exactly the same thing again here. I've seen you do this all the time - you don't let any evidence or new information change your way of thinking. That's dangerous.
Finally, what seals the deal for me is the non-movement of polaris. We are hurtling through space, allegedly, at nearly 2 million MPH, rotating, revolving, etc. If the earth's angle to polaris were to change even a little bit, just by a couple of degrees, then Polaris would have off center. Sure, they argue that Polaris is so far away that the angle doesn't change at all. But the entire solar system and the galaxy hurtle through space on such a flat plane that the angle between earth and Polaris never changes.
Why do you think nautical almanacs are published yearly, and the using old ones with outdated information will give you inaccurate results? Because the stars do change in orientation ever so slightly. From different revisions of this nautical almanac, we can see the shift of the stars’ positions.
From a nautical almanac, we can understand that contrary to what flat-Earthers claim, Polaris’ position does change over time. In 1834, the official British nautical almanac gave us that the declination of Polaris is 88°25’40”. However, in the 1923 edition, it is 88°53’35”, and in 2018, it became 89°20’31”.
The determination of a ship’s position from celestial navigation depends on the accuracy of stars’ position in the nautical almanac being used. Because we do not have a fundamental problem in celestial navigation, we can be sure that the positions of stars being reported in nautical almanacs are correct.
-
It's still always an impact with an explosion when an asteroid hits the moon, that gives us a round crater as the energy is dissipated equally in all directions every time. I've explained this to you previously, yet you reurgitate exactly the same thing again here. I've seen you do this all the time - you don't let any evidence or new information change your way of thinking. That's dangerous.
Correct. And there being no wind, rain or anything to disturb the dust, then the craters will remain circles.
Consider this for what its worth: When we were told that men were to be sent to the moon, scientists said that the moon is 4.6 billion years old, so, because of meteors and falling cosmic dust at today’s calculated rate, with no atmosphere to burn them/it, no water or wind to cement or pack them/it, there could be up to 35 feet of dust in places on its surface, making it difficult to land. Two probes, Ranger and Surveyor, constructed with long legs for the deep dust, were sent to investigate. Indeed, Neil Armstrong, said by NASA to be the first man on the moon, stated that his greatest fear was the lunar dust awaiting him. As it turned out they tell us they found only an inch of powder evenly distributed on the moon’s surface, 6,000 years of it according to their own calculations according to the science of uniformitarianism..
-
Correct. And there being no wind, rain or anything to disturb the dust, then the craters will remain circles.
Consider this for what its worth: When we were told that men were to be sent to the moon, scientists said that the moon is 4.6 billion years old, so, because of meteors and falling cosmic dust at today’s calculated rate, with no atmosphere to burn them/it, no water or wind to cement or pack them/it, there could be up to 35 feet of dust in places on its surface, making it difficult to land. Two probes, Ranger and Surveyor, constructed with long legs for the deep dust, were sent to investigate. Indeed, Neil Armstrong, said by NASA to be the first man on the moon, stated that his greatest fear was the lunar dust awaiting him. As it turned out they tell us they found only an inch of powder evenly distributed on the moon’s surface, 6,000 years of it according to their own calculations according to the science of uniformitarianism..
An inch of dark gray dirt on the moon which emits no light, yet the moonlight is brilliant enough to reach earth and light the night sky. Makes sense to some.
-
An inch of dark gray dirt on the moon which emits no light, yet the moonlight is brilliant enough to reach earth and light the night sky. Makes sense to some.
Great point! The closer you get to the moon, the brighter would be its light. How would it be possible for NASA to take pictures/videos of the landing? Wouldn't the moon's brightness be too extreme? We're talking photo/video technology which is DECADES old. An iphone still can't take a picture of a lightbulb, because it's too bright. But a 60 year old camera can take a picture of the moon's light? :laugh1::laugh2:
-
An inch of dark gray dirt on the moon which emits no light, yet the moonlight is brilliant enough to reach earth and light the night sky. Makes sense to some.
Yeah, given how bright the moon appears in the sky, you'd think that during the moon landings, the astronauts would have been in blindingly-bright conditions, that not gray-black shady stuff.
-
It's still always an impact with an explosion when an asteroid hits the moon, that gives us a round crater as the energy is dissipated equally in all directions every time. I've explained this to you previously, yet you reurgitate exactly the same thing again here. I've seen you do this all the time - you don't let any evidence or new information change your way of thinking. That's dangerous.
Oh, shut up, you arrogant Modernist twit. Just because you pontificate something doesn't make it true. Unless the moon were molten and rippling like water, the craters wouldn't be symmetrical circles. Your proof is always "because I said so" ... just like when you pontificated "that's not how flight works" as if you were some kind of aviation expert. Get lost. 90% of your "evidence" is merely your pontification.
I've exposed half of your crap as garabage that's been debunked a hundred times over by FE proponents.
You paste in stupid pictures which show objects cut off and asser that it's proof where there's no data about the observation whatsoever, but then dismiss FE videos are refraction, because you say so ... whereas refraction suddenly is no longer a consideration with your own pictures.
You're absolutely begging the question and your confirmation bias (and pathetic brainwashing) causes you to accept uncritically any evidence that you think on the surface might support your position. It's this kinds of lies and dishonesty that make FEs even more convinced that they're right.
Projectiles would be coming in from all kinds of angles, including grazing from the side and creating trenches, especially given that the side of the moon we see is facing the earth and therefore not exposed to a direct head-on collison. Blast go in circles when things hit head on.
-
Unless the moon were molten and rippling like water, the craters wouldn't be symmetrical circles.
Right. And every single asteroid that hit the moon would've had to have been 100% symmetrical, the odds of which are "astronomical".
-
Oh, shut up, you arrogant Modernist twit. Just because you pontificate something doesn't make it true. Unless the moon were molten and rippling like water, the craters wouldn't be symmetrical circles. Your proof is always "because I said so" ... just like when you pontificated "that's not how flight works" as if you were some kind of aviation expert. Get lost. 90% of your "evidence" is merely your pontification.
So what is it that you do - if I'm pontificating, then what about these statements of yours?
With regard to the so-called "craters" on the moon, I find it rather odd that nearly all of them are almost perfect circles.
That's an argument from ignorance, plain and simple.
If you detonate a bomb or grenade on soft ground, it will leave a round crater. Same thing happens on the moon. The craters are not even always perfect circles, but usually that's just what a shockwave o expanding matter will form, it will radially expand in all directions.
(https://i.imgur.com/GbdRmr0.png)
I've exposed half of your crap as garabage that's been debunked a hundred times over by FE proponents.
You are doing a good job at handwaving away any evidence contrary to your standpoint, I agree.
You paste in stupid pictures which show objects cut off and asser that it's proof where there's no data about the observation whatsoever, but then dismiss FE videos are refraction, because you say so ... whereas refraction suddenly is no longer a consideration with your own pictures.
We know exactly how refraction works, it is a well examined phenomenon. It is not a magnifying glass, nor does it visually shift objects in front of each other spatially. That is baseless FE nonsense.
I can imagine why these "stupid pictures" anger you, because you know just as well as everyone else that on earth, over sufficient distance, all points drop away from your horizontal plane. Obviosuly we have to account for refraction and see how it affects what we observe. In our atmosphere, refraction bends light rays downwards, thus visually lifting up distant objects. This increases the effective, observed radius of earth. So strong refraction will actually lessen this drop due to curvature, you could say refraction makes the earth appear more flat than it actually is. Yet the curvature will still always be observable given a large enough distance.
This has obviously also been measured in multiple ways, here's a nice example from a surveyor. The horizontal plane of the theodolite at an elevation of 12.13ft intersects the building at an elevation of about 200ft. This is only possible if the horizontal plane of building's base is lower than the horizontal plane of the observer.
(https://jessekozlowski.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/200413_lp.jpg)
Here is another example. An image from an airplane, with an established eye level and a clear view of the horizon. We observe the dip of the horizon (drop from horizontal), and the cherry on top is that this was overlayed with a grid that takes the shape of a sphere. According to FE, somewhere ahead the horizon would have to visually converge with eye level (that's what perspective does with two flat planes), yet this obviously never happens.
(https://i.imgur.com/W9tW8TB.jpg)
(source: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth, original image without grid here (http://walter.bislins.ch/work/media/Horizon-is-not-at-eye-level-original.jpg))
-
An inch of dark gray dirt on the moon which emits no light, yet the moonlight is brilliant enough to reach earth and light the night sky. Makes sense to some.
That "gray dirt" is called Lunar regolith and its albedo value of 0.136 is high enough for it to reflect a lot of light (like a desert would). That's why we see it shine in the night sky (albeit much weaker than sunlight), because if you have a lot of dust that reflects a little light, then that all of that light combined will still be bright. That's what happens with the moon.
-
Great point! The closer you get to the moon, the brighter would be its light. How would it be possible for NASA to take pictures/videos of the landing? Wouldn't the moon's brightness be too extreme? We're talking photo/video technology which is DECADES old. An iphone still can't take a picture of a lightbulb, because it's too bright. But a 60 year old camera can take a picture of the moon's light? :laugh1::laugh2:
The closer you get, the less light will actually directly reach you. Also keep in mind that the moon does not emit light, it only reflects it.
Still, it was indeed very bright on the moon.
(https://i.imgur.com/d3QgbZm.jpg)
-
An inch of dark gray dirt on the moon which emits no light, yet the moonlight is brilliant enough to reach earth and light the night sky. Makes sense to some.
How do you know that it's dark gray dirt? It is well known that they used cement powder in their studio.
-
How do you know that it's dark gray dirt? It is well known that they used cement powder in their studio.
I think that the comment was to point out the inconsistency here. Either the moon looks like they portrayed it in the moon landing videos or else it can't be as shiny as it appears in the sky. So either the moon landing was fake or they're lying about the nature of the moon ... or both.
-
The closer you get, the less light will actually directly reach you. Also keep in mind that the moon does not emit light, it only reflects it.
Still, it was indeed very bright on the moon.
You just happened to choose a picture where they had multiple lights on the astronots. There are many extremely dark shots (photos and videos) of the alleged moon missions. You do that constantly, SELECTIVELY pick out what you think suits your agenda, and refuse to look at the entire picture ... a classic example of confirmation bias.
-
That "gray dirt" is called Lunar regolith and its albedo value of 0.136 is high enough for it to reflect a lot of light (like a desert would). That's why we see it shine in the night sky (albeit much weaker than sunlight), because if you have a lot of dust that reflects a little light, then that all of that light combined will still be bright. That's what happens with the moon.
I reject every single word above because I reject the notion that we've been to the moon. Ergo, there's no way to prove anything you said. It's fantasy science.
The closer you get, the less light will actually directly reach you. Also keep in mind that the moon does not emit light, it only reflects it.
:confused: This makes absolute 0 sense. The truth is the exact opposite.
-
That "gray dirt" is called Lunar regolith and its albedo value of 0.136 is high enough for it to reflect a lot of light (like a desert would). That's why we see it shine in the night sky (albeit much weaker than sunlight), because if you have a lot of dust that reflects a little light, then that all of that light combined will still be bright. That's what happens with the moon
The moon is an actual light according to scripture. There is no gray dirt or sand to be found on it Up close photos and videos show pock marked surface lens free of dirt. The moon is a very very bright light and when it is full it will light the earth's night and even putrefy foods left out under a full moon, lower temps on earth, obstruct vision, even wash out the color red to gray. No amount of word slush and comedic pseudo science sophistry pretending the moon is a dusty rock will change reality.
-
You just happened to choose a picture where they had multiple lights on the astronots. There are many extremely dark shots (photos and videos) of the alleged moon missions. You do that constantly, SELECTIVELY pick out what you think suits your agenda, and refuse to look at the entire picture ... a classic example of confirmation bias.
Please show me the pictures you're talking about. The majority of them are lit very brightly, as you would expect in a desert or a snowy (high albedo) environment.
-
I reject every single word above because I reject the notion that we've been to the moon. Ergo, there's no way to prove anything you said. It's fantasy science.
:confused: This makes absolute 0 sense. The truth is the exact opposite.
I didn't mention a single thing about moon landings in that post. We can perform spectroscopy to find out what the lunar surface is made of, and the albedo value follows from that.
-
The closer you get, the less light will actually directly reach you. Also keep in mind that the moon does not emit light, it only reflects it.
Please show proof that the moon does not emit light, but only reflects light.
-
Please show proof that the moon does not emit light, but only reflects light.
If you look to the sky and watch a while, you can see that most of the time the moon is only partly visible, and that the visible part is on the side of the sun. It seems obvious, that the sun is illuminating the moon.
If you got less time, check out that you get a chance to observe a total eclipse. I saw one in the early 1980s in Paris. The moon moves between earth and the sun, and it gets dark during the day. You can easily see that the moon does not emit light.
-
Total solar eclipse from Madras, Oregon on August 21, 2017:
https://youtu.be/G10m2ZZRH4U
A video proves nothing, it may be fake. Better make sure, you can see an eclipse live. To prepare yourself, see:
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2023-october-14
-
If you look to the sky and watch a while, you can see that most of the time the moon is only partly visible, and that the visible part is on the side of the sun. It seems obvious, that the sun is illuminating the moon.
If you got less time, check out that you get a chance to observe a total eclipse. I saw one in the early 1980s in Paris. The moon moves between earth and the sun, and it gets dark during the day. You can easily see that the moon does not emit light.
Seems obvious? This is the time to get all the information needed to prove it. There is so much more to know. The moon emits a light that is different from sunlight.
-
Seems obvious? This is the time to get all the information needed to prove it. There is so much more to know. The moon emits a light that is different from sunlight.
What about eclipses? Do you find eclipses at least a little bit inconvenient, given that you still claim that the moon emits light? You seem to prefer to be silent about the obvious.
-
What about eclipses? Do you find eclipses at least a little bit inconvenient, given that you still claim that the moon emits light? You seem to prefer to be silent about the obvious.
No inconvenience. I don't think I've been silent. I've studied eclipses for years. The moon emits light. Scripture says the moon is a light. Enoch says the moon is a light. He explains that the moon gets 1/7 of its light from the sun. Any clues should be investigated before taking on modern pagan science.
-
I've studied eclipses for years. The moon emits light.
Are you serious? Compare the moon in a normal night with a solar eclipse!
Scripture says the moon is a light.
About the luminaries, it doesn't say how they work.
Enoch says the moon is a light.
I'm Catholic. No Book of Enoch accepted. (Isn't that even Jєωιѕн crap?)
-
Are you serious? Compare the moon in a normal night with a solar eclipse!
About the luminaries, it doesn't say how they work.
I'm Catholic. No Book of Enoch accepted. (Isn't that even Jєωιѕн crap?)
Explain your concern with eclipses. About the luminaries, we have what we have though modern science contradicts it. Should we ignore the differences we're encountering and only go with the narrative? How do you think the luminaries work? Enoch is referenced in scripture several times which offers the book a notch of credibility above modern pagan science and at least consideration.
-
Explain your concern with eclipses.
Really? I need to explain this to you?
Well, look at the everydaynight moon. It looks relatively bright in the night, like a luminary. But then, when it blocks the sunlight during an eclipse, it looks black. Not luminary at all, rather blocking light and emitting nothing.
About the luminaries, we have what we have though modern science contradicts it. Should we ignore the differences we're encountering and only go with the narrative?
I don't care much about modern science. Why mention them at all? Long before modern science, people were able to recognize that the moon reflects the light of the sun.
How do you think the luminaries work?
I don't know how the sun works. But it's obvious that the moon reflects light (primarily) from the sun, as explained before.
Enoch is referenced in scripture several times which offers the book a notch of credibility above modern pagan science and at least consideration.
You seem to suggest that the "Book of Enoch" (aren't there several such?) was written by Enoch. I don't think so.
-
Really? I need to explain this to you?
Well, look at the everydaynight moon. It looks relatively bright in the night, like a luminary. But then, when it blocks the sunlight during an eclipse, it looks black. Not luminary at all, rather blocking light and emitting nothing.
I don't care much about modern science. Why mention them at all? Long before modern science, people were able to recognize that the moon reflects the light of the sun.
I don't know how the sun works. But it's obvious that the moon reflects light (primarily) from the sun, as explained before.
You seem to suggest that the "Book of Enoch" (aren't there several such?) was written by Enoch. I don't think so.
I'm sticking to the book of Enoch for now. It is referenced in scripture, so what is the problem?
-
I'm sticking to the book of Enoch for now. It is referenced in scripture, so what is the problem?
Scripture does not reference any "book of Enoch". Why fool yourself?
-
Scripture does not reference any "book of Enoch". Why fool yourself?
You are woefully mistaken. There are multiple references to the Book of Enoch in Scripture, as this book was considered part of the Old Testament by the Jєωs.
Jude 1:14-15, quoting Enoch 1:9 {2:1} [1]
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
"To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
-
You are woefully mistaken. There are multiple references to the Book of Enoch in Scripture, as this book was considered part of the Old Testament by the Jєωs.
Jude 1:14-15, quoting Enoch 1:9 {2:1} [1]
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
"To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
Do you mean the book of Enoch was considered part of the Hebrew Bible? When? Why not more? By whom?
The quote of the epistle of Jude doesn't prove your claim that Scripture references the book of Enoch. Both may e.g. quote another source.
-
Do you mean the book of Enoch was considered part of the Hebrew Bible? When? Why not more? By whom?
The quote of the epistle of Jude doesn't prove your claim that Scripture references the book of Enoch. Both may e.g. quote another source.
Yes the book of Enoch was considered inspired by God, by the Jєωs. Christ quoted it precisely due to this fact. Plenty of historical evidence for this.
It wasn’t included in the catholic bible, 400 yrs later, because after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, some Old Testament books were lost. when they were “found” a few hundred years later by Jєωιѕн leaders, the Church Fathers were suspicious that the books had been edited. So they couldn’t be trusted to be considered canon.
However in the 1800/1900s some Protestants rediscovered the book of Enoch and translated it. I’ve read it, it’s not very long and I see no anti-Catholicism in it at all. Could it still be missing things? Yes. Is it still inspired? No we can’t say that anymore. But...it’s a unique book because it talks PRECISELY about our times and the enemies we face.
-
Yes the book of Enoch was considered inspired by God, by the Jєωs. Christ quoted it precisely due to this fact. Plenty of historical evidence for this.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
-
12. Uriel likewise showed me another regulation, when light is poured into the moon, how it is poured into it from the sun.
How about that, Tradman? Light from the sun is poured into the moon, says the book of Enoch!
15. It becomes precisely completed on the day that the sun descends into the west, while the moon
ascends at night from the east.
16. The moon then shines all the night, until the sun rises before it; when the moon disappears in
turn before the sun.
The sun descends and the moon ascends. Looks bad for a FE-model, where sun and moon circle above a disc.
-
Please show proof that the moon does not emit light, but only reflects light.
Which part of the moon emits light, exactly? Where is that shiny regolith? ::)
(https://i.imgur.com/kmd3XZe.png)
It looks just like a dull sphere lit by the sun from one side only, with the other side being in total darkness.
(https://i.imgur.com/phb1QVI.png)
-
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
:laugh1: It's not my assertion; it's historical fact.
-
How about that, Tradman? Light from the sun is poured into the moon, says the book of Enoch!
The sun descends and the moon ascends. Looks bad for a FE-model, where sun and moon circle above a disc.
I mentioned that Enoch also says that the moon gets 1/7 of it's light from the sun.
-
:laugh1: It's not my assertion; it's historical fact.
It's your assertion. You probably studied your "history" based on hermeticist websites.
-
You're just too lazy to do your own research. Suit yourself.
-
I mentioned that Enoch also says that the moon gets 1/7 of it's light from the sun.
So even according to Enoch, the Moon reflects some light? But the other 6/7 are emitted by the Moon itself? Where does it emit that light then, looking at my previous post?
And where do those ratios even come from?
-
So even according to Enoch, the Moon reflects some light? But the other 6/7 are emitted by the Moon itself? Where does it emit that light then, looking at my previous post?
And where do those ratios even come from?
Yes, as I remember, Enoch says the moon reflects some of the sun's light or energy. The rest comes from the moon itself.
-
Yes, as I remember, Enoch says the moon reflects some of the sun's light or energy. The rest comes from the moon itself.
The moon does not emit any light whatsoever, or it wouldn't have a dark side at all. You should accept that.
-
The “dark side” of the moon assumes it’s globe-shaped, which has never been proven, because we’ve never been there. It’s possible the moon is a flat disc just like the earth, except the moons flat part is vertical, while the earths flat is horizontal.
Everything we “know” about the moon is BS because it’s based on govt lies.
-
You're just too lazy to do your own research. Suit yourself.
Your claim was refuted already. You can't prove that the Epistle of Judas quotes the book of Enoch. And likewise any similar claims can't be proven. You just fell for Gnostics or the like, who fooled you.
Apart from that, you didn't do any solid research, as evidenced by the fact that you don't present any, to support your claim.
-
As the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, shineth in the morning without clouds, and as the grass springeth out of the earth by rain.
Holy Scripture calls the sun rising and setting dozens of times, while flat earthers want to make us believe that the sun doesn't rise or set, but rather circles above our heads without ever rising or setting.
What they tell us: "Perspective" makes it appear as if the sun rises and sets, while FE truth teaches that it never does.
They come up with the same redderick against Holy Scripture, like the heliocentrists did.
And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves [...]
Following the flat earthers, Holy Scripture speaks only according to the appearances.
-
:facepalm: You can go look up the Church Fathers who believed in the book of Enoch. Or not. Your choice.
-
:facepalm: You can go look up the Church Fathers who believed in the book of Enoch. Or not. Your choice.
"Church Fathers who believed in the book of Enoch"? Church Fathers believed in the Lord. Nobody denied that some Church Fathers knew the book of Enoch. That doesn't prove that Judas quotes it.
-
Who is she that cometh forth as the rising aurora, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?
That's just appearance they say; Solomon didn't know that the aurora just appears to be rising from below the flat earth because of "perspective". The sun always circles above our heads.
:fryingpan:
The sun was risen upon the earth, and Lot entered into Segor.
That's just because Moses was deluded by NASA CGIs, and so he was fooled into thinking that the sun rises, while that's just appearance caused by "perspective". The sun always circles above our heads.
:fryingpan:
-
(https://andreasgoller.photography/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/3T1A1062-3.jpg)
Sunrise below the clouds.
Seen from the Rotwand ("Red Wall"), a 1,884 m high peak in the Mangfall Mountains in Bavaria, the highest summit in the Spitzingsee region and one of the most popular of Munich's local mountains (Hausberge).
-
https://youtu.be/gI7wpQx9o-c
(just one minute, or start at 0'50")
The sun is always a few thousands of miles above the flat earth. Don't fall for "perspective". :fryingpan:
-
(https://nocheckedbags.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SunriseSharmElSheikh.png)
This is a sunrise seen from the Ritz-Carlton in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. Moses might have seen similar sunrises. But just like globe earthers, he believed that the sun really rises, while, in the meantime, flat earthers found out that the sun circles at a constant height of a few thousand kilometres above the flat earth, above our heads, and above the clouds. The fact that you see only half of the disk has to do with "perspective". If you don't understand that, ask your local FE expert, he'll explain it to you.
:fryingpan:
-
Hardly anyone in the world, for at least two millennia, believed the Earth was flat. …until now.
I think the op against The Principle docuмentary was far more successful than they could’ve dreamed. The world’s becoming so stupid.
On a bright note, I hear that according to Bartholomew Holzhauser, even celestial scientific questions will be resolved in the 6th Age.
-
Hardly anyone in the world, for at least two millennia, believed the Earth was flat. …until now.
This false notion is one of the problems for people looking into flat earth. They have expunged so much from the Internet that people actually believe this ridiculous idea that no one thought the earth was flat. The greater percentage of people throughout the centuries, all civilizations prior to the 1600's, not only believed earth is flat, they expounded on it, measured it, philosophized about it and drew many pictures of it over the centuries. The saints and fathers of the Church even compared the tabernacle, Noah's ark and the ark of the covenant to earth as microcosms reflecting God's creation.
-
Good material, Marion. Don't even need science to debunk the most basic assertions of flat earthers.
But it is the "globe religion" with "baseless claims" and "unproven assumptions" according to some here ::) :incense:
-
And other some fell upon stony ground, where it had not much earth; and it shot up immediately, because it had no depth of earth. And when the sun was risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
Our FE-disciples know more than the Lord does. He thinks that the sun rises.
Or does the Lord just, for convenience, adopt the way of speaking of dumb NASA indoctrinated people, who mistake reality, where the sun is circling at constant height above our heads and FE-"perspective" rules?
:fryingpan:
-
:confused: Why can't the sun rise in a FE model? Most of you are so close-minded that your conclusions are retarded.
-
:confused: Why can't the sun rise in a FE model? Most of you are so close-minded that your conclusions are retarded.
Don't you read CI? They claim such a model, and try to explain the "apparent" rising and setting of the sun by some else unknown form of "perspective".
These are not globe earther conclusions, but flat earther explanations. And you never complained about them, though you defended flat earth. Now, that you've understood that that's wrong, you try to blame me. Ridiculous!
-
Don't even need science to debunk the most basic assertions of flat earthers.
No, you globers are decidedly afraid of real science. You’ve made it absolutely clear how you refuse to look at the subject objectively, as a question of science. It’s actually rather pathetic to watch you and Marion carry on like a couple of crybabies who can’t let go of their teething rings.
-
No, you globers are decidedly afraid of real science. You’ve made it absolutely clear how you refuse to look at the subject objectively, as a question of science. It’s actually rather pathetic to watch you and Marion carry on like a couple of crybabies who can’t let go of their teething rings.
Here, Pax Vobis, Ladislaus is one of those who presented "perspective" as the reason why it only seems as if the sun is rising and setting, while in reality it isn't. I'm curious to hear what he says about the Lord, saying that the sun is rising.
-
Marion, there's no contradiction. "Sunrise" is just a common term to explain how it looks as the sun arises at the beginning of the day. If you think it's some sort of scientific term, you're sadly mistaken. Most people are not scientifically minded (nor do they need to be), so most terms originate from the common folk and their perspective.
-
Marion, there's no contradiction. "Sunrise" is just a common term to explain how it looks as the sun arises at the beginning of the day. If you think it's some sort of scientific term, you're sadly mistaken. Most people are not scientifically minded (nor do they need to be), so most terms originate from the common folk and their perspective.
Pax, I agree that rising of the sun and setting of the sun (or moon) are common terms used in all languages to describe general observations of all (including scientists). Now, flat earthers claim that these observations deceive. See e.g. the quote at the end of this post. Start the video at 11'45". The guy explains that the sun really moves at a constant height, while it only appears to rise or set.
Flat earthers claim that people were and are generally deceived, and were and are too retarded to realize the effects of "perspective". People have called the sunrise sunrise and the sunset sunset, ever since at least Moses. The Lord called it sunrise. Some decades after the NASA fooled the world with fake moon landings, the Lord gave grace to some, to the flat earthers, to see that humanity erred since at least Moses, who called the sun rising and setting, while in reality it isn't.
More precisly, humanity erred up to the Apostle Eric Dubay.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-26f63acf1660531c083929d27487b3b8)
It's not before 2015, that the current FE sun and moon model was published.
Recent flat earthers claim that people generally are deceived and speak according to appearences and not according to reality. This, as presented, includes Scripture; Moses, Solomon, and the Lord.
An analog problem is known since Galileo Galilei, who thought that the earth orbits around the sun. St Robert wrote:
And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves [...]
Consequently, our flat earthers put themselves into an uncomfortable situation. They claim that Moses, Solomon, and the Lord speak "only according to the appearances". Their situation is that of the heliocentrists.
This is some of the best sun timelapse stuff I've seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDaiw-G1VGE
Lots of great footage, but see in particular 9:29 - 10:34. If the sun is 93 million miles away, it should NOT increase in size like that. It absolutely looks like it's coming closer to the camera.
12:15 - 13:12 ... watch it get smaller and move in a straight line as if in a perspective line.
P.S.: The video is nonsense. E.g. the guy presents perspective as if the sun wouldn't change size with distance. I can't understand how Ladislaus falls for such cretinism.
-
A sunrise doesn’t prove the sun moves around the earth each day. There is more than 1 FE theory. You’re obsessed with Dubay as if he’s the president of FE.
How many theories of sedevacantism are there (100s)? Not all the details are worked out (not even close). But still, millions of people believe it and it’s plausible even if not fully explained (yet). Get the parallel?
-
A sunrise doesn’t prove the sun moves around the earth each day. There is more than 1 FE theory. You’re obsessed with Dubay as if he’s the president of FE.
Again, you blame me, while I simply refute what has been presented here on CI. Go ahead and present a second, a third, and a fourth FE theory.
I am deeply sorry to not have refuted yet, what hasn't yet been presented here. :fryingpan:
-
There is more than 1 FE theory.
I read this as an acknowledgment, that you consider the 1 FE theory presented here on CI as refuted. Thank you!
-
No, you globers are decidedly afraid of real science.
I'm sorry, that is ridiculous. Anything of scientific value that was produced in the last centuries was created by people who knew the earth is a sphere.
You'd need to show me a scientific paper, study, book, or any other work that is actual science and not just unproven assumptions (can we call them hypotheses?) that
You’ve made it absolutely clear how you refuse to look at the subject objectively, as a question of science. It’s actually rather pathetic to watch you and Marion carry on like a couple of crybabies who can’t let go of their teething rings.
In the other thread where I posted undeniable evidence that even early spaceflight was not faked, in the face of that, perhaps without even looking at it, you said I had to consider the matter in a scholastic manner.
For scientific question, I like to employ the scientific method as good as possible, because it is objective.
-
Flat Earthism = monomania
-
Flat Earthism = monomania
Lol. If you believe heliocentrism you think the earth goes 550,000,000 miles around the sun every 24 hours. :laugh1:
-
Do globers here really believe the sun is moving at the expert's said speed and distance around the sun? I only estimated in the post above. The amount of miles of earth barreling around the sun is more than 550,000,000.
If sun is center, and the radius of this circuit (R) is the distance of 93 million miles, we can calculate it.
The equation is C = 2 x pi x R
C = 2 x 3.14 x 93 million miles
C = 584,000,000 million miles
Earth is orbiting the sun at 584 million miles per day/ 24 hours in a day and going approx 24 million MPH.
Woo wee! Gives me a headache. And you globalists call us crazy.
-
Lol. If you believe heliocentrism you think the earth goes 550,000,000 miles around the sun every 24 hours. :laugh1:
Well, not only that, but if you factor in the rotation of the galaxy, it's several million MPH. Milky way allegedly spirals and then it revolves around the universe somehow.
I recently saw an FE point out that we're not simply rotating (allegedly of course) but also revolving around the sun. That would mean that we experience changes in velocity, depending on whether we are rotating in the direction of the revolution around the sun or against it. And that would mean we would feel this movement. Changes in velocity result in force which can and should be felt.
-
I'm sorry, that is ridiculous. Anything of scientific value that was produced in the last centuries was created by people who knew the earth is a sphere.
That totally misses the point. I'm saying that YOU refuse to apply scientific methodology to study the question objectively. None of you globe believers have done anything but beg the question and then defend your position from the trenches, throwing one lame excuse for a proof at the wall after another.
You declare that these people "knew" the earth is a sphere. They didn't/don't "know" anything. They simply BELEIVED the earth was a globe because they too never questioned it.
-
Well, not only that, but if you factor in the rotation of the galaxy, it's several million MPH. Milky way allegedly spirals and then it revolves around the universe somehow.
I recently saw an FE point out that we're not simply rotating (allegedly of course) but also revolving around the sun. That would mean that we experience changes in velocity, depending on whether we are rotating in the direction of the revolution around the sun or against it. And that would mean we would feel this movement. Changes in velocity result in force which can and should be felt.
Yep, and add to that 2 more movements, rotating and wobbling. And people think scientists don't lie. It's almost as if the experts are not only laughing at us, but checking for a pulse. :facepalm:
-
Yep, and add to that 2 more movements, rotating and wobbling. And people think scientists don't lie. It's almost as if the experts are not only laughing at us, but checking for a pulse. :facepalm:
And with all that movement Polaris just doesn't budge from its position. Does everything rotate and revolve on a perfectly flat plane ... except the earth of course? Even a slight tilt of the earth's angle would dislodge Polaris. It doesn't matter how "far away" it is; if the angle of the earth's "axis" in relation to Polaris were to change, then it would bump Polars from its position. But with all this preposterous amount of motion, we are to believe that this never happens?
These ludicrous speeds were mathematical fictions (the equation fantasy-land described by Tesla) that are necessitated by their calculations regarding the size of the planets, solar system, galaxies, etc.
And I would love to see how if we're rotating and revolving at the same time how we wouldn't feel the earth's rotation, as our velocity changed. It would be like those carnival rides where you kindof spin and rotate at the same time, and this causes strange shifts in the sensation depending on how the two movements coincide.
-
Lol. If you believe heliocentrism you think the earth goes 550,000,000 miles around the sun every 24 hours. :laugh1:
Even normies don't think this. You're so neck-deep in nonsense, you're even getting the normie mainstream narrative wrong.
-
Even normies don't think this. You're so neck-deep in nonsense, you're even getting the normie mainstream narrative wrong.
Normies don't know anything about anything, let alone the Scientific specifics of the heliocentric model. (or any other theory for that matter)
But Normies do know:
Flat Earthers dumb
Climate change real
Mars rover cool
Science smart
TV god
Man is woman
gαy okay
Antivaxxers retarded
White people bad
-
Even normies don't think this. You're so neck-deep in nonsense, you're even getting the normie mainstream narrative wrong.
Um, yea, this is the official narrative. It is the reality of a sun 93,000,000 million miles away. So, if you're suggesting they lied about that, they didn't lie about anything else? I'm not the heliocentric model defender. Do tell.
-
Normies don't know anything about anything, let alone the Scientific specifics of the heliocentric model. (or any other theory for that matter)
FEs know a great deal more about the heliocentric model than the glober "normies" do.
-
Do globers here really believe the sun is moving at the expert's said speed and distance around the sun? I only estimated in the post above. The amount of miles of earth barreling around the sun is more than 550,000,000.
If sun is center, and the radius of this circuit (R) is the distance of 93 million miles, we can calculate it.
The equation is C = 2 x pi x R
C = 2 x 3.14 x 93 million miles
C = 584,000,000 million miles
Earth is orbiting the sun at 584 million miles per day/ 24 hours in a day and going approx 24 million MPH.
Woo wee! Gives me a headache. And you globalists call us crazy.
Nobody claims that the earth is orbiting the sun once per day. Not even heliocentrists (who say once per year).
Geocentrists believe that the sun is orbiting the earth every day at a distance of 93 million miles. That's a lot faster than what heliocentrists say about the earth orbiting the sun once a year. Stars, even farther away, are still faster.
-
FEs know a great deal more about the heliocentric model than the glober "normies" do.
As evidenced on this page! :fryingpan:
-
FEs know a great deal more about the heliocentric model than the glober "normies" do.
Tradman doesn't know what he's talking about, and you flat earthers don't get it, even after LaramieHirsch told you. Embarrassing for you flat earthers. :jester:
-
None of the flat earthers (excepting Pax Vobis) cared to comment on the posts about the flat earthers implicit claim that all the world, including Moses, Solomon, and the Lord, use deceptive language, describing appearances and not reality.
Pax Vobis answered "there is more than 1 FE theory", implying that the common flat earthers idea, that the sun doesn't move vertically above FE, must be rejected to avoid said alleged deceptiveness of our languages.
I'm not aware of any published alternative FE theory about the trajectory of the sun. And if there was one, it would contradict observation. The sun doesn't change size while it is observed over time within the tropics where it is seen at noon at the zenith.
Heliocentrism too, like FE, claims deceptive language, describing appearances and not reality. Heliocentrism too, like FE, claims that what we all see isn't true. FE proponents frequently insist that they believe what they see with their own eyes. But in fact, they claim that we can't trust our senses. All humanity called the sunrise sunrise and the sunset sunset, while FE proponents say: it appears as if the sun rises, but in reality it doesn't. Additionally, FE proponents claim that all humanity, including Moses, Solomon, and the Lord, are too retarded to intuitively handle perspective.
But who is really retarded?
-
Nobody claims that the earth is orbiting the sun once per day. Not even heliocentrists (who say once per year).
Geocentrists believe that the sun is orbiting the earth every day at a distance of 93 million miles. That's a lot faster than what heliocentrists say about the earth orbiting the sun once a year. Stars, even farther away, are still faster.
Oops my bad. Earth is only going 1.3 million MPH https://www.businessinsider.com/earth-screaming-through-space-nasa-animated-video-2019-10
Earth is screaming through space at 1.3 million mph. A simple animation by a former NASA scientist shows what that looks like.
-
Even normies don't think this. You're so neck-deep in nonsense, you're even getting the normie mainstream narrative wrong.
Oh, normies do. That is, if scientists are normies. These particular normies say this. Too bad they aren't all on the same page. But at least they hang themselves in style. From Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/01/how-fast-does-earth-move-through-the-universe/?sh=39219ceb4d5c
There might not be a universal frame of reference, but there is a frame of reference that's useful to measure: the rest frame of the CMB, which also coincides with the rest frame of the Hubble expansion of the Universe. Every galaxy we see has what we call a “peculiar velocity” (or a speed atop the Hubble expansion) of a few hundred to a few thousand km/s, and what we see for ourselves is exactly consistent with that. Our Sun's peculiar motion of 368 km/s, and our local group's, of 627 km/s, matches up perfectly with how we understand that all galaxies move through space.
627 kilometers / second = 1,402,559.06 miles / hour
-
None of the flat earthers (excepting Pax Vobis) cared to comment on the posts about the flat earthers implicit claim that all the world, including Moses, Solomon, and the Lord, use deceptive language, describing appearances and not reality.
Scripture argument cuts both ways. Clearly Scripture describes the sun as stopping (with Joshua), and not the earth. In fact, had the earth stopped, that would have been felt big time all around the world. Was God working an optical illusion?
It's not "deception" to refer to the sun rising and setting, because that's exactly what it does in the field of vision and through perspective. It does in fact rise in the sky and then set (fall) in the sky. How is that "deception" to use those terms? Does the sun not rise and then set in the sky? What, in your opinion, should Scripture say, that it "appears to descend due to perspective as it gets farther away" (instead of "sets")?
-
It's not "deception" to refer to the sun rising and setting, because that's exactly what it does in the field of vision and through perspective. It does in fact rise in the sky and then set (fall) in the sky. How is that "deception" to use those terms? Does the sun not rise and then set in the sky?
Yes, this is the point i was making. Scripture describes a movement based on common understanding. It is not explaining a scientific movement of a heavenly body.
What, in your opinion, should Scripture say, that it "appears to descend due to perspective as it gets farther away" (instead of "sets")?
:laugh1: Exactly. Marion, you are just interpreting "rising/setting" to prove your point, while in fact, these are just neutral descriptions and prove nothing.
-
Here's the Book of Enoch regarding the sun. Notice the regular use of "setting" and "ascending"/"rising" even though the sun is reportedly passing through various portals (not sure what those are supposed to be).
And this is the first law of the luminaries: the luminary the Sun has its rising in the eastern portals of the heaven, 3 and its setting in the western portals of the heaven. And I saw six portals in which the sun rises, and six portals in which the sun sets and the moon rises and sets in these portals, and the leaders of the stars and those whom they lead: six in the east and six in the west, and all following each other 4 in accurately corresponding order: also many windows to the right and left of these portals. And first there goes forth the great luminary, named the Sun, and his circuмference is like the 5 circuмference of the heaven, and he is quite filled with illuminating and heating fire. The chariot on which he ascends, the wind drives, and the sun goes down from the heaven and returns through the north in order to reach the east, and is so guided that he comes to the appropriate (lit. ' that ') portal and 6 shines in the face of the heaven. In this way he rises in the first month in the great portal, which 7 is the fourth [those six portals in the cast]. And in that fourth portal from which the sun rises in the first month are twelve window-openings, from which proceed a flame when they are opened in 8 their season. When the sun rises in the heaven, he comes forth through that fourth portal thirty, 9 mornings in succession, and sets accurately in the fourth portal in the west of the heaven. And during this period the day becomes daily longer and the night nightly shorter to the thirtieth 10 morning.
While Enoch is not accepted as an inspired text, Sacred Scripture quotes it several times, which it would hardly do if it was some occultic/gnostic type of work. There's an area there in between being inspired and being outright false and filled with error. While it's not protected from error, it seems to be respected by Sacred Scripture enough to quote from it. And there's no doubt that Adam and Eve knew about the nature of the world, and passed along a great deal of that knowledge. We don't believe, as the evolutions do, that early man was ignorant and that's why all these cultures just happened to embrace a flat-world cosmology (because they were guessing and ignorant).
-
And when I say that the course of the sun is theory, it's possible that the sun we see is just something reflecting off the firmament, or the interaction of some other radiation on the firmament. Some FEs hold that the actual sun is above the firmament, and the firmament actually reflects or amplified it down on the earth. They have made these models with a glass dome over the top of the flat plane of earth and then shine a very small flashlight off of it, where the light distribution appears to match that of the sun.
This video is very interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTE4WbJvn3I
-
And when I say that the course of the sun is theory, it's possible that the sun we see is just something reflecting off the firmament, or the interaction of some other radiation on the firmament. Some FEs hold that the actual sun is above the firmament, and the firmament actually reflects or amplified it down on the earth. They have made these models with a glass dome over the top of the flat plane of earth and then shine a very small flashlight off of it, where the light distribution appears to match that of the sun.
This video is very interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTE4WbJvn3I
Great video. Gives you a lot to think about.
Strange that some flat earthers, largely a bible referencing group, think celestial lights are above the firmament because scripture describes the lights, which are sun, moon and stars, as "in" the firmament, which is under the dome itself. Like all of them are located in an upside down bowl. It also describes water above the firmament, which divides the water from the water.
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
Genesis 1:14-16
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
Genesis 1:6-8
-
Scripture argument cuts both ways. Clearly Scripture describes the sun as stopping (with Joshua), and not the earth. In fact, had the earth stopped, that would have been felt big time all around the world. Was God working an optical illusion?
It's not "deception" to refer to the sun rising and setting, because that's exactly what it does in the field of vision and through perspective. It does in fact rise in the sky and then set (fall) in the sky. How is that "deception" to use those terms? Does the sun not rise and then set in the sky? What, in your opinion, should Scripture say, that it "appears to descend due to perspective as it gets farther away" (instead of "sets")?
It's called Copernican Revolution. The Ptolemaic model described what everyone was observing. Sun, moon, and stars orbit the earth, and the planets show a more complicated motion. On the other hand, the Pythagoreans had long claimed: Appearances deceive, the sun is not moving, the earth moves.
The Roman inquisition condemned the proposition that the sun is at rest as philosophically absurd (plus heretical, against scripture). Also, the proposition that the earth moves and spins as philosophically absurd (plus at least theologically erroneous).
These propositions are philosophically absurd, because they imply that the obvious isn't obvious. Every child can see what is going on, until it is re-educated and taught that the ground is moving and the sun at rest, or, more recently, that both move.
"Science" finally found out that they can't distinguish absolute motion from relative motion (Ernst Mach). But still most proponents prefer philosophically absurd ideas.
What happens when people accept philosophically absurd ideas? Copernicanism has lead to general relativism. Kant, analyzing the Copernican Revolution, even denied that man can recognize a lion as a lion and an oak as an oak. Modernism is another consequence that followed.
The more recent "Pythagoreans" or "Copernicans" are the modern flat earthers. They continue the tradition to re-educate the children. "No," they say, "the sun isn't rising and setting. It may appear to be, but in reality it isn't. You're deceived. The FE-truth is: the sun moves at constant height".
But the child doesn't listen. It is watching an aircraft approaching high in the sky on a straight line and then moving away again. No flat earther will make it believe that it looks as if the aircraft had been taking off (rising) when approaching, and landing (setting) when moving away again.
-
Great video. Gives you a lot to think about.
Strange that some flat earthers, largely a bible referencing group, think celestial lights are above the firmament because scripture describes the lights, which are sun, moon and stars, as "in" the firmament, which is under the dome itself. Like all of them are located in an upside down bowl. It also describes water above the firmament, which divides the water from the water.
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
Genesis 1:14-16
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
Genesis 1:6-8
LARGE FONT = MORE AUTHORITY ON A SUBJECT THAT IS UNQUESTIONABLE!!!!
-
LARGE FONT = MORE AUTHORITY ON A SUBJECT THAT IS UNQUESTIONABLE!!!!
The pasted text was larger than I thought and I didn't notice until it was too late to change it. Sorry I offended you with my common sense.
-
Here's the Book of Enoch regarding the sun. Notice the regular use of "setting" and "ascending"/"rising" even though the sun is reportedly passing through various portals (not sure what those are supposed to be).
It reminds me of Tolkien's Middle-Earth. :laugh1:
When Arda was a flat plane enclosed within a globe, before being transformed into a planetoid, its Gates of Morning and the Door of Night were where the Sun leaves the world for the outer dark each night and returns each day in its cycle. Very much similar to the myths of Ra and his boat towing the Sun or the Greco-Romans with Helios pulling the sun with his chariot. Interesting to see that it's in Enoch.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OeHmqODG10k/maxresdefault.jpg)
(http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/thumb/4/45/Roger_Garland_-_The_Gate_of_Morn.jpg/561px-Roger_Garland_-_The_Gate_of_Morn.jpg)
(http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/thumb/b/b2/John_Howe_-_The_Door_of_Night.jpg/800px-John_Howe_-_The_Door_of_Night.jpg)
-
Just wanted to take, oh, 10 seconds, to refute Dankward's gratuitous assertion (delivered as always such authority) that all impact craters are round. Here are just a couple from earth.
Rectangular with rounded corners:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zFu9swJEyG8/VthpiDOq5GI/AAAAAAABMCQ/PpJZYTGC538/barringer-crater-15.jpg?imgmax=800)
Square with rounded corners:
(https://www.history.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1200/MTgxMTMzNTEwMzk0ODQ4MzQ0/crater-gettyimages-st000607.jpg)
You'd have all kinds of things (in a wide variety of shapes) coming in from strange angles. But instead (on the moon) we see this:
(https://englishtribuneimages.blob.core.windows.net/gallary-content/2020/12/2020_12$largeimg_1821450357.jpg)
Perfect circles everywhere ... that also appear to be very shallow for impact craters. These look more like bubbles in a liquid than they do impact craters.
If the following asteroid "Oumuamua" (probably just made up by NASA) were to hit sideways, it would NOT result in a circular impact crater.
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/internal_resources/3577)
-
Just wanted to take, oh, 10 seconds, to refute Dankward's gratuitous assertion (delivered as always such authority) that all impact craters are round. Here are just a couple from earth.
You'd have all kinds of things (in a wide variety of shapes) coming in from strange angles. But instead (on the moon) we see this:
(https://englishtribuneimages.blob.core.windows.net/gallary-content/2020/12/2020_12$largeimg_1821450357.jpg)
Perfect circles everywhere ... that also appear to be very shallow for impact craters. These look more like bubbles in a liquid than they do impact craters.
I said that explosions tend to radially expand outwards as energy is quickly released, thus resulting in round impact craters. This was specifically about the moon, not about earth.
These are not all "perfect circles everywhere" on the moon either, as I already mentioned - just look closely without bias. Use an image editing software if you want to. Are you really looking at this and saying they are all perfect circles?
However the soft, light moon dust (regolith) is displaced much easier than the tight earth crust, thus tending to result in nice, round craters.
If you think this proves that the moon is "translucent plasma cheese" you're mistaken - we know the moon is a solid spherical object lit by the sun and only by the sun, we can actually bounce signals off it's surface (as has been done even by amateur radio operators since decades) and measure it's surface using radar, as well as perform spectroscopy on the light that bounces off of it.
You should really take into account more external, unbiased material on these topics instead of just picking what confirms your bias.
Radar image of the moon, that means not only light reaching it, but invisible electromagnetic waves hitting the moon and bouncing back:
(https://i0.wp.com/greenbankobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/southern_highlands.jpg?w=2000&ssl=1)
-
Scripture argument cuts both ways. Clearly Scripture describes the sun as stopping (with Joshua), and not the earth. In fact, had the earth stopped, that would have been felt big time all around the world. Was God working an optical illusion?
Another interesting note is that God through Our Lady at Fatima even implicitly undermined the "errors of Russia" to come by moving and changing the Sun in in the sky, with even people in outlying areas witnessing the event. Which, to me, shows the Sun as a local body rather than a gargantuan ball of nuclear plasma in (((space)))
-
Another interesting note is that God through Our Lady at Fatima even implicitly undermined the "errors of Russia" to come by moving and changing the Sun in in the sky, with even people in outlying areas witnessing the event. Which, to me, shows the Sun as a local body rather than a gargantuan ball of nuclear plasma in (((space)))
This is a really good point. I haven't considered the Miracle of the Sun yet from the cosmology perspective. I had always been puzzled by it, like how the earth could get that close to the sun without major things happening, but if the sun is more local, it could come just close enough to heat things up but not incinerate the planet. I don't buy that the miracle was just a mass hypnosis of the crowds by God.
-
This is a really good point. I haven't considered the Miracle of the Sun yet from the cosmology perspective. I had always been puzzled by it, like how the earth could get that close to the sun without major things happening, but if the sun is more local, it could come just close enough to heat things up but not incinerate the planet. I don't buy that the miracle was just a mass hypnosis of the crowds by God.
It was one of the things that first came to mind when I was looking into the subject of geocentrism. She wasn't just warning us about politics or wars, but even cosmological deceptions which a lot of people are waking up to these days (both FE and GE)
-
Another interesting note is that God through Our Lady at Fatima even implicitly undermined the "errors of Russia" to come by moving and changing the Sun in in the sky, with even people in outlying areas witnessing the event. Which, to me, shows the Sun as a local body rather than a gargantuan ball of nuclear plasma in (((space)))
The problem with this miracle is that it was confined to a place in Portugal. If the sun was physically moved, all in the daylight hours on Earth would have seen its effects. This did not happen.
-
The problem with this miracle is that it was confined to a place in Portugal. If the sun was physically moved, all in the daylight hours on Earth would have seen its effects. This did not happen.
If it occurred through natural processes, you would have a point. But it was a miracle, a suspension of the natural order for the purpose of faith, so I stand by what I said.