Heliocentric model is a lie. :boxer:So why don't you give us an estimate of the correct distance and size of the Sun... you won't, because a first grader with elementary knowledge of physics would shred you. You wouldn't be able to explain the energy emitted by the sun 24/7/365 for at least 6,000 years.
You wouldn't be able to explain the energy emitted by the sun 24/7/365 for at least 6,000 years.
That's an interesting point.
You'd also want to factor in when you fly in an airplane, you cruise at X,000 feet, and how much bigger is the sun? And extrapolate from there.
Why would it take at least 6000 years to explain the energy emitted by the sun? Or is your grammer here imprecise, and you meant to say something else?Have you ever put a log on the fire?
So why don't you give us an estimate of the correct distance and size of the Sun... you won't, because a first grader with elementary knowledge of physics would shred you. You wouldn't be able to explain the energy emitted by the sun 24/7/365 for at least 6,000 years.It is so simple that the sun is close; I know if you will be able to understand. ;D
So why don't you give us an estimate of the correct distance and size of the Sun... you won't, because a first grader with elementary knowledge of physics would shred you. You wouldn't be able to explain the energy emitted by the sun 24/7/365 for at least 6,000 years.People understood the sun well before our time. Scripture explains how Joshua stopped the close-to-earth sun and moon over two specific places on earth: Joshua 10:12 "Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. " Just because some say it took 6000 years to understand the sun is 93,00,00 miles away, doesn't mean it's true. Deriding people for your misconceptions is to your shame.
So why don't you give us an estimate of the correct distance and size of the Sun... you won't, because a first grader with elementary knowledge of physics would shred you. You wouldn't be able to explain the energy emitted by the sun 24/7/365 for at least 6,000 years.Golly, you crack me up.
That's an interesting point.I can extrapolate.
You'd also want to factor in when you fly in an airplane, you cruise at X,000 feet, and how much bigger is the sun? And extrapolate from there.
I can extrapolate.Thank you Tradplorable. Fascinating.
I fly frequently in the years since I became a flat earther. I always ride in a windowseat now for this reason.
On midday flights, you can take great photos of the sun at zenith (midpoint, or "high noon") when you fly under it. The sun appears bigger at zenith from your aircraft vantage point than it does at zenith from on the ground.
Think about that for a minute.
If average cruising altitude is 36,000 feet (6.8 miles) why does the sun look bigger, if you are only a little over six miles closer?
Because it's not that far away!
If the sun was 93 MILLION miles away, being 6.8 miles closer is NOT going to change its appearance.
But, it does, so that means it is much, much closer than 93M miles.
So why don't you give us an estimate of the correct distance and size of the Sun... you won't, because a first grader with elementary knowledge of physics would shred you. You wouldn't be able to explain the energy emitted by the sun 24/7/365 for at least 6,000 years.:sleep:
I can extrapolate.Interesting. How close do you think the sun is, or may be?
I fly frequently in the years since I became a flat earther. I always ride in a windowseat now for this reason.
On midday flights, you can take great photos of the sun at zenith (midpoint, or "high noon") when you fly under it. The sun appears bigger at zenith from your aircraft vantage point than it does at zenith from on the ground.
Think about that for a minute.
If average cruising altitude is 36,000 feet (6.8 miles) why does the sun look bigger, if you are only a little over six miles closer?
Because it's not that far away!
If the sun was 93 MILLION miles away, being 6.8 miles closer is NOT going to change its appearance.
But, it does, so that means it is much, much closer than 93M miles.
Picture Horseshoe Falls, the most familiar, forceful and dramatic cataract in Niagara Falls, in full spate.[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Now increase the height of the falls by a factor of 20; a kilometre of falling water, a cascade higher even than Angel Falls in Venezuela.
Now increase the flow by a factor of 10. Instead of 30 tonnes of water falling over each metre of the lip of the falls every second, allow 300 tonnes of water per metre.
Finally, widen the falls. Stretch them until they span a continent, with billions of tonnes of water falling over them every second. And don't stop there. Go on widening them until they stretch all around the equator: a kilometre-high wall of water thundering down incessantly, cutting the world in half, deafening leviathan in the abyss.
That is what 120,000 terawatts looks like. That is what drives the world in which you live.
So if the sun is only a few thousand miles away, how could something so apparently small produce so much energy?.
.You're absolutely correct... I'm just trying to shine some perspective on the subject.
They forgot to mention that all this energy (120,000 terawatts) is what light power falls on the earth alone.
.
The sun radiates energy in all directions, so the vast majority of it goes out into space (flat-earthers deny space exists) and does not fall on the earth at all.
.
You're absolutely correct... I'm just trying to shine some perspective on the subject..
You're absolutely correct... I'm just trying to shine some perspective on the subject.You can't shine any light on the subject when you are trying to force the sun into being further away from the Flat Earth than it actually is.
:sleep:Who would have guessed the globe earthers' are sleeping once again. :P Keep up everybody; we are :incense: prevailing.
This video demonstrates a method used by the ancient Greeks to determine the distance to the sun, a good activity for any astronomy class..
You can't shine any light on the subject when you are trying to force the sun into being further away from the Flat Earth than it actually is.Why don't you put a higher wattage light bulb in your dim-wit mind so that you may see the subject better. You're blinded by the darkness of your own perception of reality, as Neil pointed out earlier.
Why don't you put a higher wattage light bulb in your dim-wit mind so that you may see the subject better. You're blinded by the darkness of your own perception of reality, as Neil pointed out earlier.
And this has something to do with the distance between the earth and the sun?.
Interesting. How close do you think the sun is, or may be?Oops. I see that my question has been overlooked.
Oops. I see that my question has been overlooked.It really wasn't overlooked because there is varying thought in the sun's distance and exactness is not possible for most flat earthers who try to avoid insisting on what they don't know. While I personally do not know the distance to the sun, it is a common thought for fe people, based on geometry, that the sun is approximately 3000 miles away as shown in the meme at the beginning of this thread. That the sun is small and relatively close to earth is a certainty, and the point here, because what modern science says is impossible, that earth is a sphere orbiting a 93,000,000 mile away sun.
It really wasn't overlooked because there is varying thought in the sun's distance and exactness is not possible for most flat earthers who try to avoid insisting on what they don't know. While I personally do not know the distance to the sun, it is a common thought for fe people, based on geometry, that the sun is approximately 3000 miles away as shown in the meme at the beginning of this thread. That the sun is small and relatively close to earth is a certainty, and the point here, because what modern science says is impossible, that earth is a sphere orbiting a 93,000,000 mile away sun.It would seem that if distance alone explained the aeronautical observations, the sun couldn't be more than 100 - 500 miles away, at most. 0.2%, though granted several times more than if the sun is 93M miles, is still too insignificant to explain the observations. There must be other explanations. I find it hard to believe that the sun is 93M miles away. But that still doesn't convince me that the earth is flat.
It would seem that if distance alone explained the aeronautical observations, the sun couldn't be more than 100 - 500 miles away, at most. 0.2%, though granted several times more than if the sun is 93M miles, is still too insignificant to explain the observations. There must be other explanations. I find it hard to believe that the sun is 93M miles away. But that still doesn't convince me that the earth is flat.I've seen various figures given in flat earth literature, e.g. 1,000 mi, 3,000 miles, even 300 miles.
Beginning with Aristarchus of Samos(310-230 B.C., approximately) came up with a clever method of finding the moon’s distance, by careful observation of a lunar eclipse, which happens when the earth shields the moon from the sun’s light..
To better visualize a lunar eclipse, just imagine holding up a quarter (diameter one inch approximately) at the distance where it just blocks out the sun’s rays from one eye. Of course you shouldn’t try this---you’ll damage your eye! You can try it with the full moon, which happens to be the same apparent size in the sky as the sun. It turns out that the right distance is about nine feet away, or 108 inches. If the quarter is further away than that, it is not big enough to block out all the sunlight. If it is closer than 108 inches, it will totally block the sunlight from some small circular area, which gradually increases in size moving towards the quarter. Thus the part of space where the sunlight is totally blocked is conical, like a long slowly tapering ice cream cone, with the point 108 inches behind the quarter. Of course, this is surrounded by a fuzzier area, called the “penumbra”, where the sunlight is partially blocked. The fully shaded area is called the “umbra”. (This is Latin for shadow. Umbrella means little shadow in Italian.) If you tape a quarter to the end of a thin stick, and hold it in the sun appropriately, you can see these different shadow areas.
Question: If you used a dime instead of a quarter, how far from your eye would you have to hold it to just block the full moonlight from that eye? How do the different distances relate to the relative sizes of the dime and the quarter? Draw a diagram showing the two conical shadows.
Now imagine you’re out in space, some distance from the earth, looking at the earth’s shadow. (Of course, you could only really see it if you shot out a cloud of tiny particles and watched which of them glistened in the sunlight, and which were in the dark.) Clearly, the earth’s shadow must be conical, just like that from the quarter. And it must also be similar to the quarter’s in the technical sense---it must be 108 earth diameters long! That is because the point of the cone is the furthest point at which the earth can block all the sunlight, and the ratio of that distance to the diameter is determined by the angular size of the sun being blocked. This means the cone is 108 earth diameters long, the far point 864,000 miles from earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/loyMus2.jpg)
1. Now, if you use the same logic for measuring the distance of the Moon's shadow (during Solar eclipses), then we reckon like this:
3475 km (diameter of the Moon) * 108 =375 300 km (maximum distance for seeing Moon's shadow)
405 696 (apogee-distance) - 21 296 = 384 400
363 104 (perigee-distance) - 21 296 = 384 400
384 400 = alleged average distance to the Moon
384 400 > 375 300
The question: If the average distance to the Moon is a larger number than the maximum distance for seeing Moon's shadow, how can we see the Moon's shadow, at all?
2. Perigee/Apogee vs Perihelion/Aphelion :
A) 405 696 (apogee-distance) - 363 104 (perigee-distance) = 42 592 km
152 097 700 (aphelion-distance) - 147 098 070 (perihelion-distance) = 4 999 630 km
4 999 630 - 42 592 = 117,38
(https://i.imgur.com/ldWymNK.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WXW7mox.jpg)
B)
33' 30'' (angular diameter of the Moon at Perigee) - 29' 26'' (angular diameter of the Moon at Apogee) = 4,04
32' 42'' (angular diameter of the Sun at Perihelion) - 31' 36'' (angular diameter of the Sun at Aphelion) = 1,06
The question: Even though the difference between distances Aphelion-Perihelion is117,38 times greater than the difference between distances Apogee-Perigee, the difference between angular diameters of the Sun is 4 times smaller than the difference between angular diameters of the Moon! HOW COME?
.Hahahahahahahahahaha....
.
Your entire post is heliocentric hogwash.
Hahahahahahahahahaha....
You took the bait! Notice I didn't provide a source? Thought it would be fun to just go over to one of your beloved sites, flatearth society, and do some cut and pasting... heehee
P.S. I noticed over there in the comment sections, there's some rather bright posters who give you flat-headers a run for your money. Wish I had more time, it's rather entertaining.
Do you believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s)?What do you base this supposed finding on? Present the data.
The majority of people on Cathinfo.com who refuse to believe that the earth is flat also do not believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s).
Hahahahahahahahahaha....The flat earth society website (the original one, anyway) has many, many resources of HC and globe earth materials.
You took the bait! Notice I didn't provide a source? Thought it would be fun to just go over to one of your beloved sites, flatearth society, and do some cut and pasting... heehee
P.S. I noticed over there in the comment sections, there's some rather bright posters who give you flat-headers a run for your money. Wish I had more time, it's rather entertaining.
Hahahahahahahahahaha....P.S. It's a debate thread. There's much debate even on the flat earth society website, about the shape of earth. Your post was from a globalist defending the globe.
You took the bait! Notice I didn't provide a source? Thought it would be fun to just go over to one of your beloved sites, flatearth society, and do some cut and pasting... heehee
P.S. I noticed over there in the comment sections, there's some rather bright posters who give you flat-headers a run for your money. Wish I had more time, it's rather entertaining.
What do you base this supposed finding on? Present the data.https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/are-there-any-people-on-cathinfo-com-who-do-not-believe-that-the-earth-is-flat/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/are-there-any-people-on-cathinfo-com-who-do-not-believe-that-the-earth-is-flat/)
Hahahahahahahahahaha....Here's your heliocentric source material:
You took the bait! Notice I didn't provide a source? Thought it would be fun to just go over to one of your beloved sites, flatearth society, and do some cut and pasting... heehee
P.S. I noticed over there in the comment sections, there's some rather bright posters who give you flat-headers a run for your money. Wish I had more time, it's rather entertaining.
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/are-there-any-people-on-cathinfo-com-who-do-not-believe-that-the-earth-is-flat/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/are-there-any-people-on-cathinfo-com-who-do-not-believe-that-the-earth-is-flat/)All I see there is the same bare naked speculative assertion. What is the root of this notion that you claim to hold?
..
Is the sun 93 million miles away? Nope. It's 149,597,870.7 kilometers away.
Here (https://www.universetoday.com/117843/how-did-we-find-the-distance-to-the-sun/) you go:
.
As of 2012, 1 AU = 149,597,870,700 meters exactly, regardless of whether we find the Earth’s semi-major axis is slightly different in the future.
.
So the question has been settled.
.
I know, 2012 is kind of recent, and it's hard for flat-earthers to keep up with the news. Sorry.
.
Hahahahahahahahahaha....
You took the bait! Notice I didn't provide a source? Thought it would be fun to just go over to one of your beloved sites, flatearth society, and do some cut and pasting... heehee
P.S. I noticed over there in the comment sections, there's some rather bright posters who give you flat-headers a run for your money. Wish I had more time, it's rather entertaining.
But perhaps, like Neil Obstat you prefer to ignore posts that challenge you, especially if it comes from a man, and opt to pick on the women instead....Man? Were? Effeminate male... yea, there are few of those who believe with their flat-heads that the earth is flat.
Man? Were? Effeminate male... yea, there are few of those who believe with their flat-heads that the earth is flat.
Do you believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s)?.
The majority of people on Cathinfo.com who refuse to believe that the earth is flat also do not believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s).
.
Why don't you just keep posting the same (misspelled) question and (misspelled) platitudes again and again?
.
Oh, right. You ARE posting the same thing over and over.
.
All I see there is the same bare naked speculative assertion. What is the root of this notion that you claim to hold?.
Neil, as you are a traditional Catholic, why would you not want to answer the question about whether or not you believe in all of the infallibly defined dogmas of the Catholic Church? I, for one, believe in all of them. Why wouldn't you?.
Aren't traditional Catholics supposed to believe in and accept all of the infallibly defined dogmas of the Church (without innovation)? That's what I assume, anyway.
What's odd is that the globe-earthers don't want to address this.
.
Questions persistently posted with deliberate misspellings prove from the start that the questioner is not interested in productive intelligent discussion but only puts out the same pablum because predetermined responses and narrow-minded rejoinders are already planned. Besides, someone like you who has been around here for 4 years ought to have seen previous responses to this sort of query when asked by someone who is capable of actually carrying on a conversation, instead of by someone who predictably regurgitates the same canned posts over and over.
.
How do you see flat-earthism as relevant to defined dogma of the Church, and vice versa?
.
(https://www.theatlantic.com/).
The Atlantic
(https://www.theatlantic.com/)Visualizing How Much Energy the Sun Shines Onto Earth: A Thought Experiment
Imagine Niagara Falls. Now multiply it, again and again and again.
Like The Atlantic? Subscribe to The Atlantic Daily (http://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/daily/), our free weekday email newsletter.
Imagine Niagara Falls. Now multiply it, again and again and again.
(https://cdn-theatlantic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w680/cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/Sun-615.jpg)
NASA
Every day the sun beats down on the Earth, its energy literally making life possible. How much energy? A flow of 120,000 terawatts, which is, as science writer Oliver Morton puts it (http://heliophage.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/the-worldfalls/), "10,000 times the amount that flows through our industrial civilisation - all the world's reactors, turbines, cars, furnaces, boilers, generators and so on put together." Still can't quite picture what that amounts to? Morton has written a stunning little thought experiment to help. Here's how it goes (http://heliophage.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/the-worldfalls/):
So awesome. It's little wonder that Wikipedia's list of solar deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_deities) runs so long.
So if the sun is only a few thousand miles away, how could something so apparently small produce so much energy?
Man? Were? Effeminate male... yea, there are few of those who believe with their flat-heads that the earth is flat.
Before you continue whining like a spoiled brat, you need to be reminded that its YOU that has to answer questions, not demand answers. The burden of proof weighs completely on your shoulders, not mine. You are the one challenging that which is accepted to be true by the unanimous consensus.
Sorry, I mistook you for someone who might be able to engage in a mature, adult conversation. My bad.
Before you continue whining like a spoiled brat, you need to be reminded that its YOU that has to answer questions, not demand answers. The burden of proof weighs completely on your shoulders, not mine. You are the one challenging that which is accepted to be true by the unanimous consensus.God has revealed to us that the earth is flat; you need to convert.
Before you continue whining like a spoiled brat, you need to be reminded that its YOU that has to answer questions, not demand answers. The burden of proof weighs completely on your shoulders, not mine. You are the one challenging that which is accepted to be true by the unanimous consensus.
1. Because truth is above consensus ( I am sure you admit this in theory)Playing mind games? What's your point here?
2. Because the argument that the earth is round is based on a faulty premise.Okay, could you please present to us a precise analysis of ALL fallacies contained within the said premise...
God has revealed to us that the earth is flat; you need to convert..
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DbaPAuVMy0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DbaPAuVMy0)
Flat-earth is not scientific.
.
Flat-earthers are stupid.
.
Before you continue whining like a spoiled brat, you need to be reminded that its YOU that has to answer questions, not demand answers. The burden of proof weighs completely on your shoulders, not mine. You are the one challenging that which is accepted to be true by the unanimous consensus.(emph. and layout via poster)
Luckily, one does not need to be "learned" to ascertain the shape of the earth.
"41. The authority of the learned in matters relating to their specialties demands our prudent assent.
"41. The authority of the learned in matters relating to their specialties demands our prudent assent."I have authority based on the simple fact I have seen the Flat Earth Horizon many times. :)
"41. The authority of the learned in matters relating to their specialties demands our prudent assent."Thanks for your input DZ...
..
Convert to what, Mohammadism? Flat-earthism is taught in the Koran, not in the Bible.
.
Where did you get that, from the Koran? You sound just like a Moslem.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Z3sRlOOOQFQ%2FWU-_YWwLjEI%2FAAAAAAABVEQ%2F9bjnPdulen0OnLq--h6FMXywmZV5gCo3QCLcBGAs%2Fs1600%2FFlat%252BEarth%252Bin%252BKoran%252Band%252BBible.jpg&sp=fcefbb5b33eccf000b6b1768bb412f6f)
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-bDLKqCCZtt8%2FVRuifm4cquI%2FAAAAAAAAAU0%2FELqsCK-rS_4%2Fs1600%2F10408962_1025348134159848_1413748501032773906_n.jpg&sp=95981524316cf8a1e2de70d174a01e0f)
.
Flat-earth is not scientific.
.
Flat-earthers are stupid.
.
Playing mind games? What's your point here?
Okay, could you please present to us a precise analysis of ALL fallacies contained within the said premise...
*Refrain from abusing the Sacredness of passages of Holy Writ with careless and personal interpretations.
.
In a strange kind of way Neil, I have to thank you for sending so many people our way. Your uncharitable behavior is showing the true fruits of globalism, and getting many people to question the consensus.
What I find interesting is that if the sun were truly 93,000,000 miles from earth, how could the sun then be loosened from the Heaven, and appear larger as if falling down toward the People?Ahhh.... never thought of an Omnipotent God being limited before... hmmm...
The sun would need to be loosened and made to travel a great distance to appear closer to earth as it did at Fatima, if it were really that far away. It makes more sense that the sun is much closer than what the modern scientists tell us it is.
Ahhh.... never thought of an Omnipotent God being limited before... hmmm...
That explains why the entire universe must be limited to a finite premise...
(http://www.newgeography.com/files/imagecache/Chart_Story_Inset/iStock_000006190604XSmall.jpg)
Sorry kiwi, you didn't provide a shred of evidence.
Not playing any mind games. It is simple logic.
Flat earth argument is based on science principally.
There is no need to present the fallacies that follow as a result of saying the earth has curvature. It should be obvious. But I will do so anyway.
The entire idea that there is a universe of stars billions of miles across is one error that follows. The notion that the earth goes around the sun is another. Gravity, with all its inconsistencies is another.
Also we have all pseudo science relating to space travel. Satellites which float above us without baloon support is one more. This list goes on and on. I don't have time to write all of them. Sorry. Just start investigating the flat earth for yourself and and it will start falling into place.
(emph. and layout via poster)
"41. The authority of the learned in matters relating to their specialties demands our prudent assent.
The authority of the savant in his peculiar domain, should be respected by the unlearned, since he who by the culture of his mind is fitted to apprehend a truth may impose it on him who could not of himself attain to its knowledge. But as the learned themselves are competent to examine the particular truths in question, they should judge the authority of other scientists by their own reason. Hence we may formulate the following three rules :
1. The authority of scientists should be accepted so long as there is no reasonable ground to believe it false or to suspect it; it should be rejected, if it is known to be false ;
2. Every scientist is a competent judge only in the science of which he is master;
3. One scientist may accept the affirmations of another, when he cannot himself ascertain their truth or demonstrate their falsity;* yet he may reject them if the opposite arguments are of equal weight."
* For a clear exposition of the harmony between the positive results of science and the truths of faith, consult Apologia de la Foi Chretienne."
f/ "ELEMENTARY COURSE OF CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF The Best Scholastic Authors" by L. de Poissy, pp. 136-137 (P. O'Shea 1893)
I'm not saying that God cannot do that. But, can you estimate how many millions of miles the sun would have to travel out of its supposed orbit in order to appear closer to the earth?mir·a·cle
mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun
- a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
Okay....but how many millions of miles would you estimate that God would have to move the sun in order for it to appear so close to the earth?Well, I wasn't there... so I can't say just how close it may have come to the earth. But, 93,000,000 miles if He had to...
Well, I wasn't there... so I can't say just how close it may have come to the earth. But, 93,000,000 miles if He had to...
I find it telling that flat-earthers have made no response to your challenge.
.
You invited them to do a thought experiment, but they cannot, because they can't think.
.
.
The challenge is simple and the silence in response is self-explanatory.
.
Flat-earthers have no response, except to jump topic to an unrelated non-sequitur.
.
It just may be closer... but I'm going to need solid evidence to convince me otherwise. I try not to be guided by emotion but rather those things which don't contradict reason... common-sense.
IMO, it makes more sense that the sun is closer to the earth than 93,000,000 miles away. A lot closer. Just like the Ancient Hebrews believed, long ago, based on Scripture.
It just may be closer... but I'm going to need solid evidence to convince me otherwise. I try not to be guided by emotion but rather those things which don't contradict reason... common-sense.
You are of course quite right to say that you try not be guided by emotion but rather by those things which do not contradict reason....common sense. I agree.Well thank you Meg... now my other duties call...
I think that most traditional Catholics believe that the Miracle of the Sun did occur at Fatima, which Our Lady pointed to as proof of her appearance from Heaven. Here's one account of the event, from an eye-witness who observed the Miracle of the Sun:.
"Everybody stood still and quiet.....At a certain point, the sun stopped its play of light and then started dancing until it seemed to loosen itself from the skies and fall upon the people. It was a moment of terrible suspense."
(The True Story of Fatima by John De Marchi I.M.C.)
What I find interesting is that if the sun were truly 93,000,000 miles from earth, how could the sun then be loosened from the Heaven, and appear larger as if falling down toward the People?
The sun would need to be loosened and made to travel a great distance to appear closer to earth as it did at Fatima, if it were really that far away. It makes more sense that the sun is much closer than what the modern scientists tell us it is.
..
Translated, this means 92,955,807 miles away, which is less than 93 million miles away.
.
..
Translated, this means 92,955,807 miles away, which is less than 93 million miles away.
.
God never commanded us to make sense out of His miracles. He never said that you have to rationalize them or else you have no faith. God has not given us orders to question His power, and has never made it a prerequisite of our reception of grace.
.
On the contrary, He has asked us where we were when He laid the foundations of the world, and He has said He would utter things never heard since those foundations were laid.
.
.The sun is much closer than 92 million, 9 hundred fifty-five thousand, 8 hundred and seven miles away.
Is the sun 93 million miles away? Nope. It's less than that: 92 million, 9 hundred fifty-five thousand, 8 hundred and seven miles away.
.
.
Sorry kiwi, you didn't provide a shred of evidence.
Let's get back to basics...
"If you're racing an ass in the Derby, you may as well run it yourself."
Lol!
Its you who is providing no evidence of having researched the issue. There is lots, but you have been too lazy to use google. I appreciate it can be very burdensome on the fingers, but do try...
Here, to help you
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs