I never knew the man, but my guess is that he liked space and wanted a biblical quote about what he enjoyed in life.
If this is your sort of evidence for a flat earth, then I am laughing and laughing
:-D
I never knew the man, but my guess is that he liked space and wanted a biblical quote about what he enjoyed in life.
If this is your sort of evidence for a flat earth, then I am laughing and laughing
:-D
i'm more amused at how you gloss over it. the man literally quotes the one quote in the bible about there being a firmament, and you pretend it means nothing.
you probably don't believe conspiracy even exist, as if all our governments are for the greater good, all wars make perfect sense. (or what I really believe, you know it all too well to be true and seek to hide it)
i only speak to because others read this, i know i'm wasting my time if to convince you where my goal. you aren't and independent mind, you are NOT SCIENTIFIC in your approach.
and if you believe the globe earth needs protecting from people like me... lol..
ahh, love you brother, i'm sorry for you that you think you need to do what you are doing. (i think you are a slave, at least i'm doing this of my own free will) if i am wrong, let it be so, there is no harm in it. there are people that are wrong all the time, yet you work so hard to convince me, even changes your methods, but never once, in my opinion, using real scientific methods.
and you think this:
makes sense... lol. seriously, talk about laughing until nearly dying.
Really? the ONLY quote in the bible about a firmament? I can think of about 19, and I am falling down drunk.
When you have an idea and dismiss anything that disproves it as fake or conspiracy, this is the essence of the scientific method?
The path of the eclipse is easily explained by the standard model. How does the flat earth explain it?
well look at that, i learned something today.
it was mentioned:
you insult scientific method with your theory of gravity that is positioned as a law.
no, it really isn't. the S shaped cannot be made given the evidence provided.
the moon is known to be closer and farther away from the earth. The sun and moon are close to each other, enough so that one can move behind the other.
i honestly can think of no way a falling rock could possible move closer and farther away as the globe earth model shows. it makes no sense.
i'm sorry you are drunk, but now it makes more sense why you can't think clearly and see what I am saying.
So you are saying that dismissing all evidence that refutes you as fake or conspiracy is good solid scientific method?
It is not my theory of gravity. It is the theory of gravity. Everybody benefits from it. Even you. I am not insulting science by defending a well known and universally accepted theory.
I din't really follow that last part...was that supposed to explain the path of the eclipse?
Here is a video of someone who tried to model one moment in time of the eclipse from a flat earth perspective. He recorded the position of the sun and moon at one location in the totality. He then moved the camera around to 30 different locations and recorded the positions of the sun and moon in the sky at that moment on a flat earth. He recorded what the flat earth model predicted for those certain positions for the moon and sun. The actual positions recorded on that day were quite different than what the flat earth model predicted for that one moment in time. This is why flatheads refuse to show any kind of testable model. It is because they always fail.
And just for fun here is how the eclipse actually works:
the 'law of gravity' is a ridiculous misnomer.
you defend it, it is now yours, until you drop it. I take responsibility for what I've posted here as being true as far as I understand it, and that what I've seen from the other side seems false and disingenuous.
theory is just an idea wrapped around a perceived event. at any moment you should be prepared for it to be proven wrong, by a better theory.
what flat earth model? there isn't a agreed upon model anywhere. .
I've watched the globe earth models predictions and explanations.. the moon travels slower than the earth spins, the shadow should be travelling west. but it travels east.
but on a flat a flat earth, it makes perfect sense, as the sun passes the moon because it is moving slower, giving a shadow that we saw.
The Law of Gravity has been proven to be true in every single test and experiment. In your world that is reason to doubt it. lolz.
If a better theory of gravitation comes along, I will accept it. Until that happens, I will defend the standard model. You have a strange way of arguing. After I just said I am defending the standard model, you say I have to defend the standard model. Where is the problem?
There is a flat earth model that the sun is 30 miles across floating and circling above the earth at 3-5 thousand miles above the earth. The earth disc has about a 25,000 mile diameter. And the flat earth topography looks like the U.N. map. This is the most accepted model by flat earth. Do you agree with this model? If not, how does yours differ?
So, taking that model and using geometry, we can determine where the sun and moon should be positioned in the sky at any particular moment during the eclipse (or any time really). Then we go ahead and take actual measurements at that particular moment. The actual measurements do not line up with flat earth model predictions. But guess what? They line up perfectly with our standard model.
The moon travels faster than the earth's rotation. It travels along its orbital path at about 2300 mph. The USA is spinning at around 600 mph in the same direction as the moon's orbital path. So the eclipse should have traveled east at around 1700 mph. Which is what we observed.
what you are unaware of, apparently, is that the law of gravity was built around every single test and experiment.
just like all of the globe earth theory. when the sun wasn't far enough to meet the data, they moved the sun farther away.
they just kept modelling the data to fit their beliefs.
the flat earthers are doing the same thing, so it isn't blame, but the resistance to them doing it... the fact you are even here, arguing in a pointless discussion, for if it is false, who gives a fuck? why are you here? why are you arguing with me? let the flat earthers do their thing, if they are wrong, then as a poorly designed aircraft it will crash.
you make allowances for mistakes, corrections to be made to the globe earth model with new data, well now there is a group that interprets that data different, and in fact sees flaws in interpretations that have been made. I say you are claiming water is dry, if it be so, I would not be able to prove it wet.
so your agenda is not very scientific, your agenda is getting in the way, your need for it to be as you say is pretty crazy, so please just get out of the way.